My Site
Skip to Content

Nuclear-Reactor Renaissance

March 15, 2011

Leland E. Teschler

Printer-friendly version

Nuclear power is back in vogue as a source of energy, thanks to revived interest in safe and less expensive reactor technologies.

Authored by:
Leland Teschler

Editor
leland.teschler@penton.com

Key points:
• Reactors using liquid-metal coolant can be thermally more efficient than light-water designs and potentially simpler to build as well.
• Modular light-water reactors that employ passive cooling systems have built-in safety measures and can be less complicated than conventional designs.

Resources:
The Babcock and Wilcox Co., www.babcock.com
Hyperion Power Generation Inc., www.hyperionpowergeneration.com
NuScale Power Inc., www.nuscalepower.com
TerraPower LLC, www.terrapower.com

There is an old joke sometimes told in the nuclear-power industry: Trying to sell nuclear power is like trying to sell anthrax. That’s because it has taken close to 30 years for the nuclear industry to get past the black eye it sustained from reactor emergencies at Three Mile Island in the U. S. and Chernobyl in the Ukraine.

But nuclear experts say the conditions that led to problems at TMI and the catastrophe at Chernobyl will never happen again. Chernobyl, for example, was built without a containment structure, considered a basic safety measure since the birth of the nuclear age. The problems at TMI arose both because its operators lacked training, and from the fact that its control room was configured as a more-complicated version of what you might find in a coal-fired generation plant.

The safety record of the nuclear industry has been exemplary since the dark days of the 1970s and 80s. Just two nuclear workers (in Japan) lost their lives in the 1990s because of accidents, and there have been no injuries recorded in the last 10 years. Nuclear-industry promoters like to contrast this record with that of the wind industry, where between 30 and 40 workers have lost their lives annually for the past several years.

All in all, nuclear proponents feel they have nothing for which to apologize when it comes to safety. And with a growing cry for carbon-free methods of generating electrical power, promoters say nuclear reactors deserve a larger role. Furthering this view is the advent of smaller reactors that promise to get past the other often-cited drawback of nuclear power: mind-numbingly high costs. Some of the new designs currently on the drawing boards are small enough to fit on a flat-bed truck and be mass produced to easily verified specifications. And one design addresses the growing problem of nuclear-waste disposal by using waste material from other reactors as its fuel.

The ability to make use of such nuclear-waste material (basically depleted uranium from conventional light-water reactors) is particularly important in the U. S., where there is no reprocessing of this material back into fuel. Consequently, an estimated 56,000 metric tons of depleted uranium sit in the U. S. The long-term storage of this material has become political.

In 2006, the research firm Intellectual Ventures, Bellevue, Wash., launched a subsidiary called TerraPower LLC to perfect the concept of a nuclear-waste-fueled reactor. TerraPower figures the stockpiles of waste represent enough fuel to generate $100 trillion worth of electricity with its reactor design. Conversely, the firm points out there is no need to enrich uranium for fueling its reactor design, thus eliminating an expensive step in the power-generation process.

Comments

Bad timing on this article

Seems like bad timing on this article, given the situation in Japan.

Au contraire. The Japanese

Au contraire. The Japanese incident pointed out flaws in thta reactor's 40-year old design. This article presents alternatives. What could be more timely?

Liquid salt reactors

The solution for nuclear energy has been around since the sixties...it's extremely safe and it uses a fraction of the fuel consumed today. The main reason it was not pursued was that it doesn't generate fuels for atom bombs. Please read this article. This is the only way to go.

Sodium?

I am very uncomfortable with the liquid sodium reactor cooling idea. I remember the sodium water explosions we did in high school and cannot imagine the failure when 600 degree C sodium leaks - as it surely will - into the cooling water used either as part of the standard cycle of for when there is an "event". The explosion will be awesome.

nukes

Until there is a safe and immediate way to render spent fuel either reusable or neutralized nuclear power is not a viable option. The plan to "store" spent fuel as a problem for future generations is unsafe and irresponsible. Data from a Phd family member contracted to work on the storage problem - the requirement was for containment that will not leak for 300 years. This for fuel with a 25K year half life just doesn't work.

Leave a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Acceptable Use Policy