One metric of assessing a civilization is the amount of energy it has at its disposal. Quite simply, the level of civilization we enjoy today depends on how much energy we can employ to keep it operating. (The Kardashev Scale)
The world is where it is today because of the large scale exploitation of fossil fuels to provide that energy. The world is also facing a climate crisis because using those fossil fuels loads the atmosphere with gases that trap heat to the point where the entire planet is heating up. Oops!
We need something different. There are a number of ways to decarbonizing the economy, but there’s one option that may need to be added to the mix: nuclear power. Before you reject it out of hand, take a look.
(Warning — if you suffer from TL;DR syndrome, you may want to move on to something else. There’s a lot here.)
Some Background — Skip Down to the Next Section if you are familiar with all this.
Despite the efforts of the fossil fuel industry, the financiers with a stake in keeping it going, and politicians heavily invested in fossil fuels, a transition is underway to carbon-free energy.
Wind and solar power are becoming cheaper day by day. There are new designs that promise to boost their ability to capture energy and turn it into electricity without producing green house gases — once you get past the carbon costs associated with manufacture and eventual disposal at the end of their life cycle. (Nothing is ever completely free.)
The tradeoff is intermittency. While we can predict with some reliability the expected amount of energy that should be available on average for wind or solar at any given location, the wind doesn’t always blow, the sun doesn’t shine at night and clouds can get in the way.
When they do provide power, there’s still the problem that the wind and the sun can’t be cranked up or down to match demand. Where those resources are available doesn’t always match up with where demand is located either.
We can rely on them IF we also build enough capacity to ensure that there is always enough power available AND build a transmission network to get it where it is needed. (See Solutionary Rail for one approach to making this happen.)
Another answer to the intermittency problem is to have an additional source of power from something else, such as conventional fossil fuel back-up power, battery farms, etc.
Hydro power offers carbon-free electricity. The issue there is the limited number of places where it can be built. Between floods and drought, hydro power is becoming problematic. Dams also create issues for wildlife and can become a safety threat if abandoned or poorly maintained.
Geothermal offers a lot of promise — if you have a volcano handy. That limits its usefulness unfortunately. There are other technologies that promise zero carbon power, and net zero carbon through use of renewables like biofuels, but wind and solar are the current front runners.
And then there’s nuclear.
Nuclear power is carbon free. (Again, the disclaimer about the carbon costs associated with manufacture and eventual disposal at the end of the life cycle.) It can produce grid scale power 24/7, and does not have a problem with intermittency. We already have nuclear power reactors; it’s not a new technology (although that is what this post is about — wait for it.)
France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear power. The original reason was to make France resistant to spikes in oil prices, but the climate crisis is providing a new justification that is going to be even more important going forward.
France is also the site of a multi-national effort to build a fusion power plant — the ITER project. It’s an entirely different process than controlled nuclear fission, which is what current nuclear power plants use. (Uncontrolled fission can range from intentional bomb blasts to reactor melt-down accidents. It can also happen naturally.) Whether or not ITER will be able to produce more power than it consumes won’t be known until they can start it up — but the effort is being made.
Odds are, if you think of a nuclear power plant, you think of something that looks like this:
This is a pressurized water reactor. The heat from nuclear fission is used to make steam that spins turbines to produce electricity. They are big, expensive, take years to design and construct — if they can get approved at all. The systems needed to keep them running are complex to operate and maintain. This design needs water for cooling — something that global warming is making problematic. But... they can generate electricity at grid scale without producing greenhouse gas emissions. There’s no intermittency issues as with wind and solar — they can operate 24/7.
Against that, there is the question of safety. The plant shown above, the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant at Oak Harbor in Ottowa County, Ohio, is not a good example to promote confidence in the commercial nuclear power industry.
Throughout its operation, Davis–Besse has been the site of several safety incidents that affected the plant's operation. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Davis–Besse has been the source of two of the top five most dangerous nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979.[3] The most severe occurring in March 2002, when maintenance workers discovered corrosion had eaten a football-sized hole into the reactor vessel head.[4][5] The NRC kept Davis–Besse shut down until March 2004, so that FirstEnergy was able to perform all the necessary maintenance for safe operations. The NRC imposed an over $5 million fine, its largest fine ever to a nuclear power plant, against FirstEnergy for the actions that led to the corrosion. The company paid an additional $28 million in fines under a settlement with the United States Department of Justice(DOJ).[4]
The reactor was going to be shut down, as it had become too expensive to compete in the energy market. (Translation — huge bills for customers of the power company.) Legislation passed to keep it operating nonetheless was revealed to be the result of a huge bribery scandal.
Meanwhile, research and development has been quietly working on something different — and now it’s here.
The case for smaller (nuclear) is better
Quietly, with little fanfare, work has been going forward on the antithesis of reactors like the one in Ohio: microreactors. These are designs that are much smaller. They don’t need massive cooling towers and critical water systems. They don’t need immense expensive containment vessels. They are designed with built-in safety features that make them simpler and safer to operate. They are at a scale that makes it possible to mass-produce their components in factories to bring down costs for both construction and maintenance. They are modular and portable — they can be shipped on a tractor trailer to where they are needed and be up and running quickly. This graphic from DOE (Department of Energy) spells it out.
The following 2021 video gives a bit more detail.
To quote from material at DOE:
Nuclear is getting smaller … and it’s opening up some big opportunities for the industry.
A handful of microreactor designs are under development in the United States, and they could be ready to roll out within the next decade.
These compact reactors will be small enough to transport by truck and could help solve energy challenges in a number of areas, ranging from remote commercial or residential locations to military bases.
Features
Microreactors are not defined by their fuel form or coolant. Instead, they have three main features:
- Factory fabricated: All components of a microreactor would be fully assembled in a factory and shipped out to location. This eliminates difficulties associated with large-scale construction, reduces capital costs and would help get the reactor up and running quickly.
- Transportable: Smaller unit designs will make microreactors very transportable. This would make it easy for vendors to ship the entire reactor by truck, shipping vessel, airplane or railcar.
- Self-adjusting: Simple and responsive design concepts will allow microreactors to self-adjust. They won’t require a large number of specialized operators and would utilize passive safety systems that prevent any potential for overheating or reactor meltdown.
Benefits
Microreactor designs vary, but most would be able to produce 1-20 megawatts of thermal energy that could be used directly as heat or converted to electric power. They can be used to generate clean and reliable electricity for commercial use or for non-electric applications such as district heating, water desalination and hydrogen fuel production.
Other benefits:
- Seamless integration with renewables within microgrids
- Can be used for emergency response to help restore power to areas hit by natural disasters
- A longer core life, operating for up to 10 years without refueling
- Can be quickly removed from sites and exchanged for new ones
Most designs will require fuel with a higher concentration of uranium-235 that’s not currently used in today’s reactors, although some may benefit from use of high temperature moderating materials that would reduce fuel enrichment requirements while maintaining the small system size.
The U.S. Department of Energy supports a variety of advanced reactor designs, including gas, liquid metal, molten salt and heat pipe-cooled concepts. American microreactor developers are currently focused on gas and heat pipe-cooled designs that could debut as early as the mid-2020s.
And…
A single unit typically generates 1 to 10 megawatts-electric.
To put this in perspective, a single megawatt of electricity can power approximately 1,000 homes. That means these systems could provide up to 10,0000 homes with clean power—24 hours a day, 7 days a week—for 10 years without stopping!
They can also be used for other applications such as community heating or to provide clean drinking water.
This 2019 video from Edward McGinnis could be taken as an infomercial for the nuclear power industry — but also makes some key points about where microreactors could fill a real need in ways that other power systems would not.
But nuclear is too dangerous/too expensive/evil!!!
Everything is relative.
Yes, nuclear has some real trade-offs. The waste problem is always a big — and reasonable — concern. Radiation can be a hazard for centuries, depending on the material involved. Any measures needed to ensure safe disposal will have to take that into account. This is not an engineering problem as much as it is a problem of political will and money.
The question isn’t whether we can deal with it safely, it’s whether we are willing to do what it takes to do it right — and what the trade-offs are for not doing it, or doing other things that don’t involve nuclear power. All choices involve consequences.
The designs we’re talking about here are supposed to be inherently incapable of running away and melting down, as I understand it. The problem of waste management is made a lot simpler when the entire unit can be carried away on a truck to dedicated facilities (which must be part of the deal) for proper handling.
There’s no question that there must be strong regulatory oversight. The Ohio case above shows that it is a bad idea to rely on people whose first objective is increasing profits and shareholder value above all — including safety.
Perhaps a national civilian nuclear power corps as a Federal program might be one answer. Only a fool or a Republican — but I repeat myself — can argue that carbon-free power is not a national priority. The number of microreactors that would be needed in the scenarios hinted at in the DOE presentations above suggest that there would be a need for a lot of trained people.
There’s also the fact that we need to properly evaluate risks and priorities.
Managing radioactive waste may be an issue for the long term — but it is limited in the area it can potentially affect. The burning of fossil fuels and the hazards they present are global, immediate, and getting worse at an increasing rate.
Wind Turbines provide clean power — but we are still figuring out what to do with wind turbine blades that have exceeded their useful lifetime. Ditto for solar panels.
Batteries are being touted as a way to provide clean power that can be stored and made available on demand. But… there’s the issue of resources consumed mining and manufacturing them — and what happens when they exceed their useful life and need to be disposed of.
The terror threat is a real concern. The potential of microreactors being used as a source for bomb-making materials or just dirty bombs has to be considered. (McGinnis notes in the video above that these reactors would be hardened, but doesn’t get into specifics.) There’s also the possibility of using alternative nuclear fuels that don’t lend themselves to making bombs.
There’s also the case that there are potential disasters waiting that don’t need to involve nukes to create massive havoc.
Nuclear proliferation is a concern as well. However, these microreactors might actually reduce some of that concern, by creating a demand for nuclear fuel to provide power if these reactors are as easy to install and operate as promised — and affordable. If the choice is between running desalinization plants to provide drinking water for a thirsty population, or building bombs, there’s going to be real incentives to go with providing power for essential systems. Which gets into cost...
The cost issue of microreactors will depend on three things:
- How many of them get built — costs spread out over total production. The bigger the run, the more costs should go down. These are designed for mass production — but if it doesn't happen, it doesn't factor in.
- Realistic appraisal of ALL the costs, including those externalized. If the costs of recycling the units are not factored in, that’s an expense that will be incurred by someone down the road. Who pays what and when is a key issue. The fossil fuel industry has been externalizing costs for decades — and the bill is now coming due.
- Realistic appraisal of the costs of alternatives. As noted above, everything has trade-offs. It’s not possible to make an honest comparison without looking at the big picture.
Also, see Vimes boots. The cheapest immediate solution can be more expensive in the long run. IF the US gets around to imposing carbon taxes, that will affect things across the board.
Eggs and Baskets
Americans have a strong tendency to seek a simple answer for every problem — like a electing a ‘strong’ leader who can magically make everything right, or expecting electric cars will solve our climate transportation problems, or thinking a hammer can be used to fix all problems. It may seem more efficient and easier to manage to go with a single big answer — but see Kauffman’s Rule #19.
While the DOE info touts the advantages and potential uses of microreactors, there is an additional aspect of dealing with the climate crisis that applies. Priority One has to be getting off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Priority Two is just as important: increasing resiliency.
It's the ability to withstand and recover from disruption. We’ve put off dealing with climate so long, we are now committed to increasing disruption for years to come even if we went zero carbon today. There’s simply too much damage already in the pipeline. We have to accept it and prepare to deal with it.
Microreactors give us a new way of getting off carbon, but they also give us an additional choice to turn to as we look to address climate issues, one of which is increasing disruption. It gives us one more tool in the toolbox, one that may be a better fit for some situations than others.
Consider Puerto Rico and its electrical systems: expensive, damaged, and fossil-fuel dependent. The island has a lot of wind and solar potential that is untapped. But, it is also subject to hurricanes and they will continue to become more damaging. Microreactors could provide a base level of power generation less likely to be taken off line by extreme weather. (Of course the transmission grid also needs to be upgraded for greater resiliency as well.)
Microreactors, because they are smaller capacity power producers, would need to be deployed in larger numbers than than the massive units currently favored for power generation — of all kinds. While a national smart grid could make it possible for wind and solar to power the entire country, disruption of that grid could lead to extensive blackouts. Microreactors dispersed around the country would allow temporarily isolated grid sections to still provide a certain amount of base power while also getting us off carbon.
There’s some concern wind and solar can’t offer enough power on a reliable basis to meet demand from heavy industry. Microreactors would be an obvious solution.
Microreactors could also serve as a backup when wind and solar power aren’t able to meet demand, as an alternative to battery farms or fossil fuels. Consider the Duck Curve.
Bottom Line
Are microreactors a game changer when it comes to nuclear power? Are they an over-hyped giveaway to the nuclear power industry? Are they a solution in search of a problem? Are they an unacceptable risk? Could they be a valuable tool in addressing the climate crisis?
My conclusion is we need to give them serious consideration as part of the answer to dealing with climate change — assuming they live up to their billing. YMMV. I don’t expect them to solve every issue or be without problems of their own, but I also believe we cannot afford to discard them out of hand because they also come with distinct advantages.
We can’t have civilization at the level we enjoy and that others aspire to without power. We have to get to zero carbon as fast as we can, because the climate crisis will not wait for us to develop the ideal answer. Some are going to argue exactly what should and should not be in the mix. There’s a whole range of possible answers that have to be factored against how quickly we can implement them and what kind of effort it will take.
In an emergency, many things become possible.
In any case, microreactors are here — and we are going to be getting real world experience with them.
I am among those who have cast a jaundiced eye at US military spending, but not all of it is necessarily wasteful. The Pentagon has been investing in renewable energy for some time now — because of the costs of fossil fuels (they use a lot), because of the security issues of supplying energy to bases along vulnerable supply lines, and because 24/7 readiness is not possible without reliable power as needed.
A military base in Alaska is going to be the first to receive a Microreactor, expected by 2027.
Eielson Air Force Base was selected in a project that began in 2019, when a National Defense Authorization Act requirement to identify potential sites for development and operation of a microreactor by 2027 began, Fairbanks television station KTVF reported.
“This technology has the potential to provide true energy assurance, and the existing energy infrastructure and compatible climate at Eielson make for the perfect location to validate its feasibility,” Mark Correll, the deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for Environment, Safety and Infrastructure, said in a statement.
Fact Sheet and FAQs here. Interesting reading.
What do you think?
UPDATE: h/t to Charlie Pierce for pointing to a WAPO article on how the Pentagon and Intelligence Agencies are warning Climate Change threatens global security. They have serious reasons for looking at microreactors and other climate-related measures.
...The Pentagon report in particular marks a shift in how the U.S. military establishment is incorporating climate issues into its security strategy, analysts said. Until now, when the Defense Department has considered climate change, it has tended to focus on how floods and extreme heat can affect military readiness rather than the broader geopolitical consequences of a warming world. Now it is worried that climate change could lead to state failure.
“Climate change is altering the strategic landscape and shaping the security environment, posing complex threats to the United States and nations around the world,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement that accompanied the Pentagon report. “To deter war and protect our country, the [Defense] Department must understand the ways climate change affects missions, plans, and capabilities.”
...The NIE concludes that geopolitical tensions are likely to rise in the coming decades as countries struggle to deal with the physical effects of climate change — which scientists say already is producing more devastating floods, fires and storms — as well as the political ones. Mitigating climate-related disasters may call for solutions that some countries cannot afford and political will that some leaders cannot muster.
The physical effects are likely to be most keenly felt in parts of the world already being reshaped — such as the Arctic — and in regions and countries that are particularly vulnerable because they experience extreme climate events, such as hurricanes or droughts, and because their governments are ill-equipped to manage the fallout.
The NIE identifies 11 countries in that category of acute risk: Afghanistan, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iraq, Myanmar, North Korea, Nicaragua and Pakistan.
Uh oh.