Way of the future

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4331282&forum_id=2#38850062)

A handful of new nuclear projects in Europe and the USA have suffered high profile construction delays and cost overruns, prompting criticism that low carbon nuclear power will struggle to help fight climate change. Yet in many countries, new nuclear power projects are being delivered mostly on time and budget, including in Belarus, China, Korea and Russia. Their success echoes the experience of nuclear power construction in decades past when its rapid deployment largely decarbonised electricity production in countries like France and Sweden, conference speakers noted.

“The vast majority of new-build projects around the world are delivering very low cost, successful nuclear programmes, achieved through repeat builds, a programmatic approach, and building up skills and capabilities within the supply chain, labour force and project leadership team,” said Kirsty Gogan, co-founder and Executive Director of Energy for Humanity, a non-profit focused on solving climate change via access to modern energy services. “That’s actually what will drive down the cost.”

According to data compiled by the IAEA on the 61 new power reactors connected to the grid over the last decade, units in the Far East were built almost twice as fast as those in Europe, taking on average 66 months compared with 110 months (excluding a few projects delayed for political and non-technological reasons). Those new builds that have gone over budget and schedule are all first-of-a-kind, first-in-a-generation projects, Gogan said. “There isn’t the experience within the project leadership teams, supply chain or labour force, and those designs are being licensed for the first time by regulators that haven’t really gained real life experience of licensing plants for a generation.” Achieving cost reduction will require significant, internal transformation of the nuclear industry and this must be supported by public policy and continuing RD&D, she noted. Cost reduction will not address all the barriers to global nuclear energy expansion, “but will make nuclear a far more viable option for decarbonisation, and as a result, our decarbonisation efforts significantly more efficient”.

Nuclear needs more conducive market conditions

For many financial institutions today, nuclear power does not qualify for financing under green or sustainable financing mechanisms. Furthermore, many markets do not price CO2 emissions, to the detriment of low carbon nuclear. Unless this changes the economics of deploying new reactors in deregulated markets will remain challenging, speakers said, indicating the need for some government intervention.

Hal Turton from the IAEA Planning and Economic Studies Section said that compared with current trends, more conducive market and policy conditions are needed to unlock nuclear power’s mitigation potential. Several countries plan to utilise nuclear power for climate change mitigation in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. However, he said in his presentation, it is widely acknowledged that plans in NDCs are not sufficient to meet the ultimate goal of limiting the increase in average global temperature to well below 2 °C, let alone to 1.5 °C. In the vast majority of scenario studies, an effective response to climate change includes an increased role for nuclear power. Consequently, a policy and market environment that unlocks the mitigation potential of nuclear power can underpin the adoption of more ambitious NDC targets to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Dr Natalia Davydova representing Russian NGO “Environmental Projects Consulting Institute”, noted that the required 50% reduction in anthropogenic per capita GHG emissions can be achieved if the following structure of global energy balance is reached by 2050s: a 40% share of traditional generation of electricity from fossil fuels; a 40% share of basic nuclear energy stations; and a 20% share of solar, wind and small hydro-power plants serving predominantly local and off-grid customers. An increase in the percentage of nuclear energy to 40% of the world energy balance will require installation of 2300GW of nuclear power generation capacities, she said. This would secure the attainment of climate-justified reductions of GHG emissions and attract about $7.5-8 trillion of investments for the development of nuclear energy by the turn of the Century. This amount of investments is equivalent to 10% of current global GDP. She added that the required reductions of carbon intensity of electricity generation are possible if currently available nuclear power technologies are transferred to developing countries with the highest rates of GDP growth.

Driving down costs: are SMRs the solution?

Jessica Lovering, a former Director of Energy at US-based non-profit organisation the Breakthrough Institute, said the key to bringing down construction costs and times is to achieve high learning rates by repeating projects using standardised designs. The industry needs to move away from being largely focused on massive one-off projects, she added, noting that the deployment of small, medium sized or modular reactors (SMRs) will shift the industry’s approach.

Tony Roulstone of Cambridge University in the UK said that for reasons of cost and funding, nuclear power is not currently a preferred means of tackling Climate Change. There are at least two available approaches that would allow nuclear to become competitive with other low-carbon energy sources. If adopted quickly, they would allow nuclear energy to be a substantial contributor to Climate Change at scale but this will be possible only with Government involvement to guarantee construction funding; and support collaborative design and development of modular and advanced reactors. Future R&D for nuclear should focus two main task: turning modern construction approaches for SMRs into practical solutions; and evaluating how AMRs can be developed and deployed before 2050.

Elina Teplinsky from law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman said it is becoming increasingly clear that, while development finance institutions (DFIs) traditionally refuse to finance nuclear projects, the same reasoning does not apply to SMRs. These are fundamentally different from large plants, and in the context of developing economies can play a crucial role in allowing the attainment of developmental goals. “However, public financing is critical for developing world energy projects. For this revolutionary technology to be brought online, DFIs must reconsider their anti-nuclear stance and provide financing for SMRs alongside other low carbon sources.”

José Reyes, co-founder of NuScale Power and co-designer of the NuScale passively-cooled small nuclear reactor, discussed the capability of the existing nuclear fleet and the NuScale SMR to adapt to extreme events caused by climate change. He introduced the concept of NPPs as “first responder power”, a new level of functionality of significant value to the next generation of nuclear power for climate adaptation. He also presented the results of a study on the role of the NuScale SMR in providing long-term power to mission critical facility micro-grids (e.g., hospitals, data centres, military bases) following a catastrophic loss of transportation and transmission infrastructure. If a catastrophic event damages both the transmission grid and transportation infrastructure such that neither fuel nor power cannot be delivered to the site for a prolonged period of time, “the multi-module NuScale plant operating in island mode has a significant advantage”, he said. If the micro-grid remains intact or can be restored, a 12-module plant can provide 120MWe to the micro-grid of a mission critical facility for 12 years without delivering new fuel to the site.

China highlights need for government support, innovation and cooperation

Gu Jun from China National Nuclear corporation (CNNC) said nuclear energy is irreplaceable in terms of combatting climate change, and emphasised three points. First, governments and the global nuclear community should strengthen confidence and maintain the momentum and stable investments for nuclear power development, so that nuclear energy can contribute more to tackling climate change. Second, continuous innovation is needed to resolve the bottlenecks of nuclear energy development. “In order to improve the economy and competitiveness of nuclear power, we need to take effective measures, learn from feedbacks, upgrade technology and management, optimise system design, reduce the cost of key equipment and shorten the construction time.” Safety management must also be improved. Third, all-round cooperation is needed to address common challenges. International technology cooperation is becoming ever more important to optimise and upgrade nuclear energy technology to make it safer and more competitive. “Climate change is a global challenge, he said. “But the challenge may be an opportunity to create a new era of nuclear energy development.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4331282&forum_id=2#38988032)

A big step for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution came this week from Poland. A chemicals company there called Synthos has begun the process to commission a small nuclear power plant from GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. The plant will only have a capacity of 300 MW, but this is enough for its specific purpose. This nuclear plant can power a Synthos factory.

Nuclear plant.

Chimneys of the plant emitting steam. The cooling[+]

GETTY

The plant, which will not be completed for about 10 years, is expected to cost less than $1 billion. According to the International Energy Agency, the country of Poland still relies largely on coal and other carbon-based fuels for power generation, and it does not have a nuclear plant of its own. Reportedly, the government of Poland hopes open a nuclear plant in the next 20 years, but financing is still an issue.

A proliferation of small, localized nuclear power plants in private hands could be a boon for the environment. If these small modular reactors can gain some popularity, especially in countries where power is usually provided by relatively dirty resources, it could help. For instance, a small modular nuclear plant alongside a water desalination facility in Saudi Arabia would be a big step in a country where virtually all of the power comes from burning natural gas and oil. Similarly, Asia could help reduce its carbon footprint by opening small nuclear plants to power factories in regions that would otherwise rely on coal. Plus, the lower cost of these facilities and the relatively short timeline means they could come online and realize the positive impacts for air quality sooner.

The businesses that commission these plants do it because they cut utility costs. Of course, there is the cost of building and running the plant, but the companies can extricate themselves from the public grids and those utility bills. In the U.S., it is not entirely uncommon for large factories or server hubs to have their own power sources. Furthermore, they can sell their extra power back to the grid. Small-scale nuclear power plants could prove key to efforts to reduce industry’s reliance on dirty energy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4331282&forum_id=2#39023059)

I hope he doesn't end up on the board of one of these companies and fuck it up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4331282&forum_id=2#39025531)

President Donald Trump’s energy dominance narrative – fueled by the prolific production of oil and gas from America’s Shale Gale – recently got a boost from the United States Navy. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division filed a patent for a compact fusion reactor (CFR) last month, one that claims to improve upon the shortcomings of the Lockheed Martin Skunkworks CFR that uses similar “plasma confinement” technology.

The man behind the state-of-the-art design is US Navy researcher Salvatore Cezar Pais, who received major publicity for patenting room-temperature superconductors and a suspiciously UFO-like aircraft that uses “anti-gravity” technology.

If it sounds like science fiction, that’s because it sort of is.

Nuclear fusion, the reaction that powers the sun, has been the elusive dream of the scientific community for decades. Theoretically, a fusion power plant would be able to produce near limitless amounts of clean, safe energy from a small amount of electricity and a handful of hydrogen isotopes.

A fusion reaction is impossible to replicate in its perfect form because laboratory conditions cannot recreate the gravitational force of a star, but that hasn’t stopped scientists from trying. The US Navy patent claims that it can achieve these enormous amounts of energy in a compact device through the use of spinning dynamic fusors – plasma containment devices – which keep nuclear plasma stable in a way that mimics the mass of the sun.

Official patent of Salvatore Pais’ design showing conical dynamic fusors around vacuum core

Official patent of Salvatore Pais’ design showing[+]

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

The patent also states that the resulting fusion reaction would produce a net energy gain (more energy emitted than enters the system), which would be an unprecedented first for manmade fusion reactors.

Theoretically, Pais’ concept could produce upwards of one gigawatt (one billion watts) to 1 terawatt (one trillion watts) of power from just a megawatt (one million watts) of energy input. For reference, a large nuclear power plant produces around 1 gigawatt of power, enough to supply some 700,000 American homes.

If it works, the Navy patented CFR could replace the fission nuclear reactors used in almost 150 naval vessels – most of which operate under the 100 MW range. In fact, a CFR the size of a small car could be utilized in any peaceful or wartime scenario where energy is needed, from ships to jets to tanks to remote military bases.

It is no wonder, then, that the US Naval patent claim has come under scrutiny from the scientific community, especially given that the device only measures 0.3 to 2 meters in diameter. Instead of using superconducting magnets in larger, more traditional fusion plants, Pais’ design uses conical dynamic fusors that spin at extremely high speeds to produce a sustained, concentrated magnetic flux that could in theory sustain the plasma state needed for power production. This powerful magnetic flux then compresses an isotopic hydrogen gas mixture to form a plasma core in the vacuum chamber, which can achieve temperatures high enough to achieve true fusion with breakeven energy.

Achieving an energy gain at all, much less from a compact device, would be an enormous achievement not just for the US Navy, but for the entire planet. It would be a technological revolution similar to the discovery of coal-based steam engine and the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine, only with orders of magnitude more energy. It would also be safe and emissions free.

And while fusion has been called a technology that is “always going to be thirty years away”, the threat of climate change has increased the impetus to achieve success. Energy giant Eni SpA recently invested a $50 million towards Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a company founded by six MIT professors. Billionaires Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are backing Breakthrough Energy Ventures, a group committed to funding nuclear fusion research.

Fusion occurs at temperatures exceeding 15 million degrees Celsius, which can only be achieved by feeding fuel (unstable isotopes like uranium and deuterium) into a plasma field. The Soviet Union provided the initial blueprint for achieving nuclear fusion through plasma with the first Tokamak reactor, which was ultimately unable to sustain fusion conditions for more than a few seconds.

Today a number of such tokamak fusion projects exist around the world. China is working on its China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor (CFETR) to become operational in the 2020s, and South Korea has its KSTAR project, a tokamak which reached a record 70 seconds of plasma operation.

The largest project by far, however, is the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) which is a collaboration of the EU, India, Japan, China, South Korea and the United States. ITER is a massive fusion reactor facility that aims to produce around 500 MW of fusion energy when complete with an input of only 50 MW – ten times its energy input as opposed to the millions-fold increase in the Navy CFR. The ITER project represents the international commitment to finding alternative clean energy in the face of climate change.

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor currently under construction

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor[+]

ITER

It is unclear whether this patent represents a monumental scientific breakthrough. Some even said that this may be a disinformation operation, an attempt to divert America’s peer competitors to pursue a technological dead end.

What is certain is that nuclear fusion technology development is gathering pace. While the Navy’s design may not be immediately operational (or even realistic), a major shift towards harnessing clean fusion energy is already on the horizon.

All the better if the United States harnesses it first.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4331282&forum_id=2#39052156)

These guys get it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4331282&forum_id=2#39052987)

These guys are going to be huge

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4331282&forum_id=2#39262145)

NuScale is developing its first commercial small modular reactor, seen here in a rendering, for utilities in Utah.

NuScale is developing its first commercial small modular reactor, seen here in a rendering, for utilities in Utah.

ILLUSTRATION: NUSCALE POWER (RENDERING)

By Daniel Michaels

Updated Feb. 11, 2021 1:35 pm ET

The nuclear power industry is trying to bounce back after shrinking for decades, and shrunken nuclear reactors could be one key to success.

Combining new technologies, advanced engineering and a market-friendly approach, reactor manufacturers are developing new systems that produce less power but are much smaller and less costly than existing nuclear reactors.

The pitch: small modular reactors, or SMRs, that can be housed in compact containment structures and operate safely with less shielding and oversight. SMRs could allow power plants to shed their huge hourglass-shaped cooling towers and, in some designs, the reactors would be immersed in water to prevent overheating.

A cross section view of NuScale's reactor module, which would rest in a pool of water and use a safety system consisting of valves instead of electric pumps

A cross section view of NuScale's reactor module, which would rest in a pool of water and use a safety system consisting of valves instead of electric pumps

ILLUSTRATION: NUSCALE POWER

Dozens of designs are now on the table, with a handful under preliminary U.S. and Canadian regulatory review following several billion dollars of investment by private and government entities. A Utah utility hopes to run the first U.S. SMR by the end of the decade. China is investing heavily in SMR development, and Russia last year fired up an SMR on a ship, touting it as a portable power station.

SMRs may not be an easy sell, given concerns over the safety and environmental impact of nuclear power. But proponents of the new technology are pitching competitively priced, potentially limitless electricity that yields no greenhouse gas emissions—unlike power plants that burn fossil fuels—and that is more reliable than wind or solar power.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP

The Future of Everything

A look at how innovation and technology are transforming the way we live, work and play.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Utilities could retrofit existing power plants by substituting climate-friendly SMRs for aging, climate-unfriendly coal- or gas-fired burners, boosters say. SMRs could also power municipal heating systems, turn water to hydrogen for fuel or electrify remote locations, all without any emissions.

ADVERTISEMENT

SMRs would produce up to 300 megawatts of power, compared with more than 1,000 megawatts for some big power plants now in operation. But because the devices are inherently modular—many of their components can be mass-produced in factories rather than being constructed on site—SMRs could be combined in increments to boost capacity.

“It’s not just about making things smaller,” says Jay Wileman, chief executive of GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, an alliance of General Electric Co. and Hitachi Ltd. that is developing and marketing SMRs. “It’s about making things simpler.”

Like conventional nuclear reactors, SMRs split atoms to heat water and produce steam, which turns a generator to produce electricity. Because of their compact size, their proponents say, SMRs can operate safely with reduced need for the thick shielding, complex safety systems and intensive maintenance regimens required for the reactors in traditional nuclear power plants.

A Tiny Nuclear Reactor Could Power Future Space Colonies

By Robert Lee Hotz and Alberto Cervantes

As NASA plans for bases one day on the moon and Mars, agency engineers know they’ll need power—lots of it. A reliable power system will be essential for lighting, water and oxygen, as well as for running experiments and making fuel for the journey home.

ADVERTISEMENT

NASA is developing a nuclear power plant whose reactor is about the size of a garbage can. Called Kilopower, this fission power system could provide up to 10 kilowatts of electrical power continuously for at least 10 years—enough to run several households. Four Kilopower units could sustain a lunar or Martian outpost.

The high cost of building and maintaining conventional reactors has stymied the development of new nuclear power plants since the 1980s and led to the decommissioning of nuclear power plants in many countries.

SMR developers aim to reverse these trends by rethinking reactor design. It’s a bid for industrial survival with overtones of the Cold War rivalries that can be traced back to the dawn of the Atomic Age, when President Eisenhower offered his “Atoms for Peace” plan for the widespread development of nuclear power.

Eisenhower’s plan, outlined in a 1953 speech to the United Nations, ushered in decades of nuclear power plant construction and a race with the Soviet Union to energize the world. Today, Russia and China are competing with the U.S. and Europe in the downscaled market.

ADVERTISEMENT

Global rivalries are just one concern for reactor makers. Next-generation nuclear must overcome public wariness of the technology engendered by the terrifying mishaps at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and, most recently, Fukushima. Then there is the challenge of making a compelling case for nuclear power as the cost of electricity from natural gas, wind and solar is plunging.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Do you think nuclear power will bounce back after shrinking for decades? Join the conversation below.

Rather than offering up SMRs as a replacement for renewables, proponents of the devices say they can play a complementary role in the smart grid of the future—replacing coal- and gas-fired plants and operating alongside wind and solar.

Most utilities rely on a variety of electricity sources, with differing costs, emissions and capacity to provide the constant flow that power grids need for stability, says Tom Mundy, chief commercial officer at SMR developer NuScale Power LLC. “Our technology is a great complement to renewable power systems,” he says.

The World Nuclear Association, a trade group, has touted “the enormous potential of SMRs” offered by their small size, construction efficiency and safety systems, which could in turn make them easier to finance than conventional nuclear power plants.

ADVERTISEMENT

The U.S. government is lending its support to SMR development. In September, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the first time issued a final safety evaluation report on a SMR—a critical step before a design can be approved—to NuScale. The company, based in Portland, Ore., and majority-owned by the industrial engineering and construction multinational Fluor Corp. , is developing its first commercial SMR for utilities in Utah and promising power by the end of the decade.

A system from General Electric and TerraPower replaces water with molten salt, seen here being tested through loops that demonstrate flow, corrosion and performance at varying conditions.

PHOTO: TERRAPOWER

Last fall, the Energy Department awarded $210 million to 10 projects to develop technologies for SMRs and beyond, as part of its Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. The agency had already awarded $400 million to various projects since 2014 “to accelerate the development and deployment of SMRs,” it said in a statement on NuScale’s safety evaluation last September.

Dozens of SMR initiatives are at various stages of development around the world, according to the World Nuclear Association. Potential buyers range from U.S. utilities trying to phase out coal-fired generators to Eastern European countries seeking energy independence.

Estonia, a reluctant part of the Soviet Union for five decades before gaining independence in 1991, sees nuclear power as a potential escape from Moscow’s continued energy grip. SMRs could work there because their size best fits the country’s power needs, says Kalev Kallemets, chief executive of Fermi Energia, an Estonian startup assessing SMR designs for a potential project.

GE, a pioneer in civilian nuclear power, has two main SMR offerings in the works. The first is a slimmed-down version of the traditional water-cooled reactor that the corporation has offered since 2014. GE designers slashed construction costs of the new device by reducing by 90% the amount of concrete and reinforcing metal needed, says Mr. Wileman. Rather than relying on electrical pumps to prevent dangerous overheating in the event of a mishap, the proposed reactor would be sited below ground in a tank of water.

Similarly, NuScale’s reactor module would rest in a pool of water and use a safety system consisting of valves instead of electric pumps, says Mr. Mundy.

TerraPower's fuel-handling test facility

PHOTO: TERRAPOWER

GE’s second offering, a system now in development with nuclear startup TerraPower LLC, replaces water with molten salt, similar to what’s used in some advanced solar-power arrays. Dubbed Natrium, the system runs hotter than water-cooled reactors but at lower pressure and with passive cooling, which eliminates piping and electrical systems while improving safety, according to TerraPower CEO Chris Levesque.

“When you have a really elegant design, you can get multiple benefits working together,” Mr. Levesque says. TerraPower, established by investors including Bill Gates, received $80 million of the Energy Department funding for Natrium in October.

While proponents of SMRs tout their inherent “passive safety,” the small reactors face opposition. Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists and other advocacy groups argue that nuclear power remains a dangerous technological dead-end that causes as many problems as it solves.

“Small modular reactor development is too slow to address the climate crisis,” the Canadian Environmental Law Association said in a petition opposing the country’s proposed funding of SMRs, which also criticized SMRs’ radioactive waste and cost.

“The basic idea, from a business perspective, is flawed,” M.V. Ramana, a professor of disarmament and global security at the University of British Columbia, says of SMR technology. Traditional reactors grew over time to achieve greater efficiencies of scale and lower cost per kilowatt-hour because power output rose faster than construction and operating costs. “There’s no reason that’s changed,” he says, dismissing SMR makers’ promises of lower costs and increased safety. Many proposed SMR expense reductions, such as less shielding, could ultimately increase their danger, while the combined use of several modules could create new safety risks like radioactive contamination that negate gains in individual modules, he says.

Mr. Ramana also says that the technological advances like 3-D printing and digital manufacturing that make SMRs possible are doing even more to improve green renewables. “It’s a kind of treadmill race, where one treadmill is going much faster.”

Even the International Atomic Energy Agency, acknowledging growing interest in the field, concluded last September that “although SMRs have lower upfront capital cost per unit, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven.”

More From The Future of Everything |

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4331282&forum_id=2#42013467)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mini-nuclear-reactors-offer-promise-of-cheaper-clean-power-11613055608

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4331282&forum_id=2#42013469)

Utilities can already buy lots of nearly free electricity at LCOE approaching $0.01.

They can't distribute it economically.

SMRs do nothing to change that.

Nuclear isn't as important as midwits think.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4331282&forum_id=2#45816975)