|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 12, 2012 12:38:06 GMT 9.5
A new post has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/smallish-is-beautifulThis a new article written by Ben Heard and me in the SA Mines & Energy Journal (issue 23, pg 22-23), about the potential for small modular nuclear reactors. (Ben should get the primary authoring credit here -- my job was to 'enhance' this one rather than lead the writing.) This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Jun 12, 2012 13:52:01 GMT 9.5
Considering that each state (i.e. NSW,Qld,Vic,WA,SA) needs to install something of the order of 180 MW per year, every year, it may well qualify to become a regular ticket item on the annual state budget. Then, whatever party is in power in the time, they can scratch around for other variations and initiatives without having to interfere with this big-but-necessary routine expenditure.
Modular reactors are fast to install. It would help the raising of capital for each item, if the similar installation from three years before was already generating income by budget time.
For that matter, Tasmania and the Northern Territory might contemplate something similar, at a rate, say, of 40 MW per year, every year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edward Greisch on Jun 12, 2012 14:05:53 GMT 9.5
Thank you for this article. Nuclear power should cost 5.5 US cents per kilowatt hour according to an email I got from HyperionPowerGeneration [alias Gen4 Energy] a few years ago. That undercuts everything except hydro from Niagara Falls, which I think it meets.
We need more Walkerville type meetings to get the message out. Most people have never heard of natural background radiation.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 12, 2012 14:34:50 GMT 9.5
I see a major advantage of SMRs as being a way to make an end run around the usual tactics of the anti-nuclear movement, namely their stalling tactics to drive up interest rates ( Chapter 9 of Cohen's The Nuclear Energy Option goes into quite a bit of detail about them). Being able to buy a factory built reactor and install it with only a matter of weeks work on the site would give them very little opportunity to delay things once approval is given and the money to buy it borrowed. At the very least to solve global warming we're going to be need to build at least a reactor a day (and that's assuming large reactors) so factory construction could really help (I would not be surprised if we could get more than 10 a day built, an SMR is probably about as complex as an airliner and Boeing has been building more than one of those a day lately). |
|
|
|
Post by jimthegeordie on Jun 12, 2012 15:02:07 GMT 9.5
I have been looking at the question of the absolute maximum population for the Australian land mass. Asuming we must have a wholesale move back to the country, I envisaged moderate-sized towns surrounded by satellite villages. The argument is that we should localise power to minimise grid losses by using renewable energy of various kinds. As renewable energy equipment has quite a high manufacturing footprint, I thought we might locate conventional nuclear power plants and heavy industries in major mining areas so that only the finished goods are transported out, with the wastes being buried in abandoned mines. The development described in this post suggests that hub communities could very well benefit from nuclear power, and support quite heavy industrial activitiy, particularly that associated with the processing of locally grown food. I like it!
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 12, 2012 18:07:38 GMT 9.5
A move back to the country isn't going to be happening (whilst density has its disadvantages, it also has advantages, suburbia is probably the lowest density you'll see a majority living in here) so I wouldn't really bother discussing what it would require except as an academic exercise (I doubt all that many people would like the answer). There also isn't an absolute maximum population because how many people you can support depends on your technology level. On the subject of localised power and renewable energy, the advocates of renewable energy seem to be proposing to deal with the unreliability of their toys by continent wide supergrids (with the faith that it'll always be windy somewhere or sunny somewhere). Whilst nuclear very well can do the job of powering small communities disconnected from a power grid (assuming we had suitable reactors we could pick up off the shelf at the local Bunnings) it probably won't be doing it in most places (instead supplying a large interconnected power grid). Oh and heavy industry is also going to require workers and those workers will have families they'll want to live near, from an environmental point of view you're probably better off just putting the industry where people would actually want to live and using electric trains (with the electricity coming from nuclear, though small enough nuclear reactors could probably be viable on a locomotive) and nuclear ships to move ore to the factories (only have those who need to be at the mines doing the fly in/fly out routine). |
|
|
|
Post by jimthegeordie on Jun 13, 2012 11:33:41 GMT 9.5
Hi, Anon. My interest in sustainable population is to identify how we would need to modify our living habits at various population levels. In other words, I am not recommending any particular model, but rather I am trying to assist in defining policies, so that if we see that the population is going to exceed a particular number, we can start planning and putting infrastructure in place well in advance. Currently, we have 3 persons per sq. km., which will rise to 5 persons per sq. km. if the forecast maximum of 35 million which can be supported in your model is reached. In the next 50 years, there are going to be huge pressures on food production and if we do not have plans in place to accommodate more people of our choosing, then we might have large tracts of our land occupied by people we would wish not to be there. Already, countries such as China and India are buying up substantial agricultural tracts of land. They might bring their own people in to work on the farms (paid back in China), they might sell their produce at a nominal price (the balance being paid in China) to record a loss and therefore pay no tax. We would receive absolutely no benefit from their presence. However, if we can identify arid areas that can be returned to food production, our research and expertise would be highly valued overseas by those countries with similar conditions. I could go on all day, but I am sure you get the picture!
|
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Jun 13, 2012 12:08:30 GMT 9.5
Hi, Jimthe geordie.
You are trying to juggle a heap of unknowns, so your conclusion, whatever that ends up being, must be suspect.
"Countries such as China are buying up substantial agricultural tracts of land" - Sure about that? Ever since white settlement, the Poms have owned very large acreages indeed, yet the nation hasn't collapsed. Without actual... umm... data, this assumption of yours is worthless.
"Paid back in China" - What makes you think that (a) the Chinese intend to seek to bring their own workers to Oz, and when? (b) That any such application from the Chinese will be successful? (c) That workers in Australia will not be subject to Australian industrial relations regulation, which includes regular payment in Australian money, either into their hand directly or into a bank account? or (d) that any such Chinese enterprise will be able to flout the taxation law in respect of preditory transfer pricing, thus enabling their profits to be shipped off shore without payment of tax?
To found a discussion on such nebulous grounds is to step into the unknown, sans clothes.
I am sure that you could indeed go on all day, as you wrote. A better use of your time would be for you to put your keyboard to one side and read up on some of the topics which interest you before you return to the subjects of population control, agricultural land management, industrial relations and the rules of international commerce.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 13, 2012 13:58:18 GMT 9.5
Hi, Anon. My interest in sustainable population is to identify how we would need to modify our living habits at various population levels. I see no reason why we need to significantly modify our living habits in the near term. In other words, I am not recommending any particular model, but rather I am trying to assist in defining policies, so that if we see that the population is going to exceed a particular number, we can start planning and putting infrastructure in place well in advance. More infrastructure would be needed to cope with an increased population (actually we've tended to lag a bit when it comes to infrastructure, damn BANANAs, though governments more interested in yet another useless sports stadium also deserve some blame). Currently, we have 3 persons per sq. km., which will rise to 5 persons per sq. km. if the forecast maximum of 35 million which can be supported in your model is reached. The world has a population density (land only excluding Antarctica) of 52 per square kilometre, ten times more than you are worried Australia will reach, the US is 32 per square kilometre (and a net food exporter) so it really doesn't seem that population density will be that big a problem. In the next 50 years, there are going to be huge pressures on food production As well as huge advancements in genetic engineering of food to increase crop yields and the ability to grow under marginal conditions (it's also worth noting that Australia is a large food exporter, one of the largest in fact). and if we do not have plans in place to accommodate more people of our choosing, then we might have large tracts of our land occupied by people we would wish not to be there. You mean people whose skin isn't white? Already, countries such as China and India are buying up substantial agricultural tracts of land. So? Though I wouldn't mind seeing some actual evidence of that. They might bring their own people in to work on the farms (paid back in China), That would require them to get their people through Australian immigration. We would receive absolutely no benefit from their presence. Yeah, except for the investment money they provide and the local jobs created. |
|
|
|
Post by BNC Moderator on Jun 13, 2012 16:25:19 GMT 9.5
MODERATOR
The discussion is wandering off topic and back on to population again - popular topic ::)Please change to an appropriate thread - such as "Royal Society-People and the Planet" where similar discussion is taking place. Thankyou.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Forbes on Jun 14, 2012 10:24:19 GMT 9.5
I hope we can get some reviews on a excellent book recently published. It covers the history of nuclear energy development.
It is available as an E book.
title "SuperFuel: Thorium, the Green Energy"
Author "Richard Martin"
|
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 14, 2012 12:02:01 GMT 9.5
David Forbes, it is on my reading list (actually, it's in my Kindle library queue, awaiting its turn)
|
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Jun 14, 2012 13:45:18 GMT 9.5
Small nuclear reactors upto 300MW are termed as small. Indian 220MW PHWR fall in that category and are available from current production. They use natural uranium and are most fuel economic reactors available as there is no enrichment required and no 'DU' tails. Australia could start with these and pay in uranium yellow cake. They are also lowest lowest capital cost reactors in the world. nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/india-can-build-nuclear-reactors-for.html Smaller designs, other than naval reactors or Russian fire-breaker models are still under theoretical development. They will also require enriched fuel. Bold political decisions will, however, be required. |
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 14, 2012 17:56:59 GMT 9.5
There certainly look to be many advantages to be had with small modular design. Yet there are some things I worry about. If we look at historic reactor developments, we see that all the major passive reactor designs have evolved from medium size (600-700 MWe) to much larger sizes (1200-1600 MWe). This happened with Westinghouse's AP600 project, that got upgraded to the AP1000 due to economic reasons (according to Westinghouse). It happened with AECL's ACR700, which was deemed to small to be economic, and was upgraded to the ACR1000 project. It happened with GE's SBWR which got upgraded to about twice its initial capacity in the ESBWR successor.
All of the major vendors have unanimously found their smaller advanced reactors uneconomical. That has me worried. Specifically, reactors have a large scaling factor, that is, reactors are cheaper per Watt for bigger sizes. Smaller reactors also need more fissile material to start up, further increasing their costs and making large scale deployment more difficult.
Sure, with sufficient production the small modular reactors could have a faster learning curve. But who's going to buy the initial units which will be very expensive?
|
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 14, 2012 18:40:57 GMT 9.5
Best options I see are:
(1) Well-developed and relatively isolated grids that require incremental additions to the generation infrastructure, rather than a massive new plant(s) - e.g. my state of South Australia
(2) Remote large-scale mining sites that currently rely on diesel generators
(3) Trans-Siberian gas pipeline, for pumping (to save a $-load of gas that is currently used for this purpose)
We proposed 1 and 2 in the BNC lead article, and 3 has been proposed before for the 311 MWe IFR PRISM (and is still under some serious discussion)
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 14, 2012 19:16:22 GMT 9.5
Remote power (which these days is mostly diesel generators with some renewables trying to help out) is quite a bit more expensive than the grid so you can afford to be more expensive if you're targeting that market. Remote communities not connected to the main grid and getting their power from diesel generators are likely to be among the first customers.
It's also worth noting that all those reactors are ones which will be mostly built on site (not in a factory).
|
|
|
|
Post by LancedDendrite on Jun 14, 2012 21:24:38 GMT 9.5
GE-H is aiming to get over the FOAK characteristics of its S-PRISM SMR design by pitching it as a method for disposing of plutonium stocks. I suspect that other SMR vendors will be doing the same. For instance: - NuScale seems to be a nice size for running larger mining operations, particularly for on-site ore processing operations and desalinating/recycling water.
- FLiBe Energy is going to build 30-50MWe LFTR prototypes for the US DoD - that's their business strategy. They'd be used to run small US Army bases and perhaps US Navy surface vessels as well.
- PBMR and other High Temperature Gas Reactors could have useful remote process heat applications, such as tar sand steam, flash distillation of water and so on. LFTR also falls into this category, but FLiBe is going on the path described above.
All of these would not necessarily involve connecting a unit to the grid and therefore be subject to potentially less public issues than a utility would. Of course, the biggest problem I think in new nuclear at the moment is an unwillingness to make mistakes. New reactors have to work perfectly from the first prototype onwards, otherwise they present an intolerable risk to investors, the public, regulators and so on. Another thing to consider is that sizes of SMRs can vary wildly. For example, I would consider a 45Mwe NuScale unit as a 'gap-filler' - that is, an NPP that can be used when a larger one wouldn't fit in the grid. A Toshiba 4S on the other hand is definitely a remote power reactor. A battery of B&W mPower (~180Mwe each last time I checked) units could be used to replace many of the single ~600MWe BWRs that exist in the US, such as Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim. |
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 14, 2012 21:48:38 GMT 9.5
I'm not really sure if the small modular reactors are in the right size category for remote powering. Here's one remote power plant supplier that has power plants from 0.165 to 10 MWe. www.ergon.com.au/community--and--our-network/network-management-and-projects/isolated-and-remote-power-stationsMuch smaller than the smallest, 25 MWe small modular reactor. A remote industrial or mining company would be more suitable in power needs, and would be less frightened of nuclear reactors (something tells me that remote Australian communities will not like nuclear reactors of any type in their backyards). It is to be hoped that some niches can be established for small modular reactors. I should add the NuScale design to the list of small modular reactors. They have a particularly simple and elegant solution to the decay heat cooling problem. www.nuscalepower.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 14, 2012 22:29:48 GMT 9.5
Checking the Caterpillar web site they offer diesel gensets from 12 kW to about 5 MW as prime generators (and those are what remote sites would be buying these days) and Cummins are offering up to 2.5 MW prime so yes, the currently proposed SMRs may indeed be a bit big for many places. Though it's also possible that the remote sites which get SMRs will just increase their per capita electricity usage once they get the bigger power plant (such places already have high electricity prices and probably not much use of electric heating, replacement of fireplaces with ground source heat pumps would be worth encouraging, along with low reliability). Remote coasting sites could use nuclear desalination and it's also possible there'll be some synfuel production (especially so with high temperature reactors). A remote industrial or mining company would be more suitable in power needs, and would be less frightened of nuclear reactors (something tells me that remote Australian communities will not like nuclear reactors of any type in their backyards). I wouldn't be so sure of that, a buried passively safe reactor basically has no downsides (it won't harm anyone, nor annoy people with noise or stroke light effects) while also providing a much better product than the combination of diesel and renewable that they have now. The problem isn't likely to be local opposition but attempts by the anti-nuclear movement to stop it at a higher level (state or federal, assuming the federal government actually has the legal power to do so). |
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Jun 15, 2012 14:37:39 GMT 9.5
There certainly look to be many advantages to be had with small modular design. Yet there are some things I worry about. If we look at historic reactor developments, we see that all the major passive reactor designs have evolved from medium size (600-700 MWe) to much larger sizes (1200-1600 MWe). This happened with Westinghouse's AP600 project, that got upgraded to the AP1000 due to economic reasons (according to Westinghouse). It happened with AECL's ACR700, which was deemed to small to be economic, and was upgraded to the ACR1000 project. It happened with GE's SBWR which got upgraded to about twice its initial capacity in the ESBWR successor. All of the major vendors have unanimously found their smaller advanced reactors uneconomical. That has me worried. Specifically, reactors have a large scaling factor, that is, reactors are cheaper per Watt for bigger sizes. Smaller reactors also need more fissile material to start up, further increasing their costs and making large scale deployment more difficult. Sure, with sufficient production the small modular reactors could have a faster learning curve. But who's going to buy the initial units which will be very expensive? Indian PHWRs (small 220MW and medium 500-700MW) are already under production and do not involve First Of A Kind costs/delays. Which is the probable reason why they are the most cost-effective small/medium size reactors. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 15, 2012 18:24:33 GMT 9.5
I imagine labour costs are low in India though that probably isn't all of it.
Having regulators who don't get in the way (as the US NRC has a history of) could also help (though I don't really know much about India's nuclear regulator).
|
|
|
|
Post by David B Benson on Jun 17, 2012 15:04:54 GMT 9.5
Not mentioned so far are the SMR designs by Holcomb and Westinghouse. The latter is 200 MWe and the former is smaller. Holcomb offers either air or water evaporative cooling.
|
|
