Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

A Preassembled Nuclear Reactor

Continued from page 1

By Kevin Bullis

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Two other features of the design could also cut down on operating costs. First, each reactor will be housed in a containment structure big enough to store all of the waste generated by the plant during its 60 year life span, eliminating the need for a separate storage facility. That could be especially important, as nuclear plant operators may have to store their own waste while they wait for the government to provide a permanent storage facility, which it is obliged to do by law. Second, the reactors are also designed so that fuel has to be replaced only once every five years, instead of the usual two years. That will increase the amount of time that the plant can operate.

Kadak says that small reactors make the most sense for poor countries that can't afford to finance $10 billion plants and do not have the necessary electricity grid infrastructure to distribute power from 1,000-megawatt facilities. However, at this point, it's not yet clear that the cost savings from manufacturing the reactors will be enough to convince large utilities in the United States--which can finance conventional plants--to adopt the design. "In the United States, it's a harder sell," Kadak says.

Although the new reactors are smaller than conventional ones, they use the same underlying technology--they're light water reactors--so Mowry says that it will be possible to get them certified under existing regulations. At least two other companies in the United States are developing small, modular light water reactors. One design, from Westinghouse, provided the template for combining the steam generator and the reactor, although it isn't designed to be built in a factory. A startup called NuScale also has a design for a small modular system that can be built in factories and shipped to power plants. Those reactors would generate only about 40 megawatts each. Other companies and researchers, including Kadak, are developing designs for future modular reactors using more advanced technology that will require a new regulatory process.

Mowry says that Babcock and Wilcox plans to file the official certification application in 2011. The company is already working with the Tennessee Valley Authority to start the process of evaluating a site for a plant that would use the reactor technology. Mowry says that the first plants using the technology could be up and running by 2018. But Mujid Kazimi, another professor of nuclear engineering at MIT, says that goal sounds "very ambitious" given what's known about the regulatory process.

Comments

  • small is very good
    I envision many small power plants powering a lot of desalination and pumping stations bringing and cleaning fresh water from the oceans, growing more food and trees, freeing rivers to the wild that build sandy beaches; and there I sit on that beach.   Very nice.  With abundant clean power We could save the world and live a very good lives too. 

    StupidPeasan...
    06/16/2009
    Posts:35
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • How much will it help?
    I certainly believe that reducing the cost and lead time like this will help. But I'm having trouble understanding how much the impact will be.

    I was under the impression that the major impediments to deploying nuclear generation are safety (including NIMBY concerns) and waste disposal. I don't see this proposal addressing either of them.

    Can someone enlighten me how important the cost and lead time considerations are in getting nuclear generating plants budgeted, sited & approved, built, and operational?

    Thanks.

    dtutelman
    06/16/2009
    Posts:57
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: How much will it help?
      There are I believe over 100 nuclear plants operating in the US today.  When was the last time you heard of an accident?  Three Mile Island was actually an example of the safety measures working at the time (30 years ago).  Newer designs are even safer and more efficient, but a now very powerful environmental lobby has until recently driven up the cost of nuclear to the point that coal and oil are far more profitable.

      In addition to the typical 5 year construction time of a nuclear plant mentioned in the article, it takes another 7 years on average to push a nuclear plant proposal through the regulatory process.  Of course, if our government cared about lowering the cost of energy, they would increase its supply by streamlining and better managing this process.  It makes you wonder where their priorities are.

      kstauff
      06/16/2009
      Posts:94
      Avg Rating:
      4/5

This discussion has been moved to our discussions forum.

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

The Marcellus Shale Gas Rush
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.