Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes

[FBaggins]

A new type of nuclear reactor—smaller than a rail car and one tenth the cost of a big plant—is emerging as a contender to reshape the nation's resurgent nuclear power industry. Three big utilities, Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp., on Wednesday signed an agreement with McDermott International Inc.'s Babcock & Wilcox subsidiary, committing to get the new reactor approved for commercial use in the U.S.

Although none have agreed to buy a reactor, the utilities' commitment should help build momentum behind the technology and hasten its adoption across the industry. It's a crucial first step toward getting the reactor design certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Early support from the three utilities, and four others that are mulling the agreement, increases the odds that customers will come forward in the future.



The news comes just as President Barack Obama announced more than $8 billion in loan guarantees this week that would pave the way for the first nuclear power plant in the U.S. in almost 30 years. He has proposed accelerating nuclear development by tripling the amount of federal loan guarantees for reactor construction to $54 billion.

The smaller Babcock & Wilcox reactor can generate only 125 to 140 megawatts of power, about a tenth as much as a big one. But the utilities are betting that these smaller, simpler reactors can be manufactured quickly and installed at potentially dozens of existing nuclear sites or replace coal-fired plants that may become obsolete with looming emissions restrictions.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

[bananas]

1. Small Reactors Generate Big Hype

[FBaggins]

2. So you wouldn't be a buyer I take it?

What a surprise. :)

Seriously though... this is a much better idea than new large-scale reactors. Even when we were building them, they were largely single designs... which means far greater expense and likelihood of failure. Having gone decades since we built one, we would come close to starting over. The first few would be dramatically more expensive then originally planned and could run in to long delays. It would take 15 years (+) before you could expect an affordable simple design that you could count on for new power generation across the country.

These, otoh, would just be a refinement on the types of reactors that we've been building and operating successfully (and safely) for decades. We have scores of them in use and loads of experience building and maintaining them. They should be far cheaper far faster (and far more scalable) than larger plants.

[Merchant Marine]

3. I like how they've solved the storage problem by storing spent rods under the core

This way they'll be protected by the same security as the core, and they're contained inside the containment building. No transport, no fuss. It stays on site and out of the elements, safe under 10 feet of reinforced steel and concrete.

[FBaggins]

4. That latest boat designs may not even need much refeuling.

My assumption is that much of this is because they operate well below their potential, so one designed for power generation would be used up more quickly... but the latest (S9G) 9th generation reactors are intended to last the life of the boat. Significantly reducing life-cycle expense and refeuling hazard.

Though "solved" is a bit much... at least until a few are actually built and used for a number of years.