That’s the front page article title in the Seattle Times today. I prefer the title in the on-line version.
Nuclear energy industry angles for bigger role in Washington and U.S. as climate change accelerates
I put my emphasis on the “angles” part of that title. The Columbia Generating Station is the only working nuclear reactor in WA, after the grand debacle of WHOOPS and the longer running fights over the Hanford reservation and all the radioactive waste stored there.
They completed a refueling cycle at the Columbia Station back in May/June of this year. The CEO for Energy Northwest managed to sum up the state of nuclear power, perhaps inadvertently, with the simple statement:
Nothing is routine
That’s actually quite correct — and a long running problem with the nuclear industry PARTICULARLY in the US. Unlike Canada and their CANDU designs, every reactor facility in the US is a unique design and there’s little commonality in overall design or control layouts from facility to facility. This was the case when I was studying power systems back in the late 60s and early 70s, and AFAIK it’s still the case today. (And the lack of standard control layouts supposedly played a role in the TMI near-disaster.) You pretty much have to be completely retrained going from one plant to the next. You want common designs, join the Navy and take a sub.
The article then goes into “renewed interest” in keeping current plants on-line as long as possible plus bringing up “new designs” for safer reactors that produce less radioactive waste and/or weaponizable material. I, frankly, consider this the “we promise we won’t F it up so badly THIS time” line being run out to see if it sticks.
Oddly enough, the Forum article by Elliott Negin (UCS) in the latest (Nov. 2021) edition of Scientific American took a deservedly skeptical look at Next-Gen Nuclear Reactor Hype. (I think you see where this is going to go.)
The problem the author addresses is that the advanced reactor designs being touted by proponents are:
largely based on unproven concepts from more than 50 years ago
Actually, he may be a little harsh — one of the concepts is using sodium or molten salt as the coolant. The US Navy has considerable experience with sodium cooling — and also pretty rigid discipline around dangerous stuff (and even they have sometimes blown it — not with a reactor to my knowledge). I sure wouldn’t want to be near any ERCOT plant trying that in TX — after they let a nuclear plant freeze this past winter.
Proponents are saying they could have these new technologies “ready for prime time” by the end of the decade and they will be less expensive, safer, and more secure than their predecessors. They also claim more efficient use of uranium and less radioactive waste.
(Is that a whiff of hubris tickling my nostril hairs?)
The Union of Concerned Scientists is somewhat skeptical, to say the least — especially about TerraPower’s 345 megawatt Natrium (sodium) reactor. They contend that it will actually be less efficient in uranium use and with no reduction in radioactive waste produced. There’s also potential danger from liquid sodium leaks and burning sodium creating extra-fast core meltdown.
TerraPower is doing a 50-50 cost share with the DOE on their first Natrium reactor in Montana — originally due for completion in 2027, now shifted out to 2028. (Negin considers the schedule still pretty unrealistic.)
There’s going to have to be a lot of NRC guidance changes to handle the new designs and how to safely move them to a civilian environment. Edwin Lyman (UCS) recommends suspending the NRCs advanced reactor demonstration program UNTIL the NRC decides whether they should require full-scale prototype tests BEFORE any designs are approved for commercial deployment.
He also recommends that NRC spend more research dollars improving the safety and security of conventional light water reactors rather than rushing into unproven designs.
ed — correct title
Read More