At 10:04 +1000 29/5/17, Stephen Loosley wrote: >"Small 'modular' nuclear reactors, or SMRs, are defined as reactor systems >that are comparatively small, compact and entirely factory built. As a result, >SMRs can be placed underground or underwater and moved for decommissioning. >They employ "passive" safety systems that do not require human intervention - >therefore fewer staff - and use a relatively small amount of nuclear material." > >An attractive proposition?
No. > ... Like all nuclear sites they inevitably involve high costs, the problems > of expensive decommissioning, the risk of accidents and waste disposal. >"Design certification, construction and operation licence costs are not >necessarily less than for large reactors, placing a major burden on developers >and proponents." >... "a classic case of supply-push technology development - no potential user >of SMRs, mostly electric utilities, has expressed any serious interest in >them." Meanwhile, fusion continues to be only a very-long-term chance: http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/nuclear-fusion-what-s-taking-so-long-1329056 ______________________________________________________________________ >"Britain's on the brink of a small-scale nuclear reactor revolution" > >24th May 2017 by Marcus Gibson >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/24/mini_nuclear_reactors_for_british_power > > >For the first time ever in April, the UK's data centres and clouds ran on >electricity generated without burning coal. > >The National Grid celebrated the news on Twitter with the promise of more >coal-free days to come. > >As coal-fired power plants wind down and with talk of blackouts in the air, >nuclear is back on the table after the government gave the go-ahead last year >for a third reactor at Hinkley Point in Somerset. Hinkley Point C is an £18bn, >35-year scheme that'll be operated by EDF. It took financial backing from the >Chinese government to land. > >However, a cheaper and smaller alternative is emerging if activity from >British entrepreneurs and academics is anything to judge by - the small >"modular" nuclear reactor, or SMR. > >Mini reactors are nothing new - they have been installed in nuclear submarines >since the 1950s, and Rolls-Royce produced them for the Royal Navy for decades. > >An SMR is defined as producing 300MWe - just 10 per cent of what Hinkley Point >C should provide. > >SMRs are defined as reactor systems that are comparatively small, compact and >entirely factory built. As a result, SMRs can be placed underground or >underwater and moved for decommissioning. They employ "passive" safety systems >that do not require human intervention - therefore fewer staff - and use a >relatively small amount of nuclear material. There are a number of different >SMR designs. >An attractive proposition > >The SMR has some notable advantages - at least on paper. Perhaps the biggest >is that SMRs can be sited in energy consumption "hotspots" around the UK, such >as cities, and tap into using existing electricity transmission cables. > >They're also much cheaper than a Hinkley. One Rolls-Royce-led UK joint venture >is slated to cost £1.25bn. It's smaller, too. The plant would cover a tenth of >the area that a traditional nuclear power station does. > >No nuclear industry programme has yet produced a series of reactors along >factory production lines, but a large order for SMRs could change all that. > >Tony Roulstone, course director at Cambridge Nuclear Energy Centre, believes a >production line operation could fulfil the promise of continuous improvements, >of more efficient designs over the years, and the real prize of being >manufactured in the UK. > >By contrast, the earlier trend for buying renewable systems - wind turbines >and solar cells - resulted in a huge import bill with around £3bn alone paid >out under David Cameron's administration to big firms such as Siemens and DONG >Energy. > >And renewables are not always as "green" as its promoters claim. Large wind >turbine blades made of fibre-reinforced polymer for example are impossible, or >simply too expensive, to recycle, according to German research organisation >Fraunhofer IWU. >But there's a deadline > >Yet time is not on our side. About half of the UK's electricity capacity is >due to be decommissioned by 2030. > >This month, a forthright report from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers >(IMechE) recommended that the UK "should focus on developing Small Modular >Reactors, including at Trawsfynydd in Wales, to secure the country's future >nuclear industry post-Brexit". > >Trawsfynydd is the site of the UK's only nuclear power plant not built on the >coast. This twin-Magnox station, closed in 1991, is instead on the shores of >an artificial lake and is capable of cooling a 700MW reactor. > >The site in Snowdonia National Park was identified as suitable by IMechE in a >2014 report and by Parliament's Welsh Affairs Committee last year. > >Dr Jenifer Baxter, lead author of the report, said: "Pushing ahead on the >demonstration and commercialisation of SMRs would be a key way for the UK to >once again become a world leader in the sector." > >This view was backed by a House of Lords committee that criticised the >government's "failure to deliver on a multimillion-pound competition to >develop mini atomic power stations," which it said "hurt the nuclear sector >and risks international companies walking away from the UK." > >In 2016, the combined costs of the Levy Control Framework (LCF) and carbon >taxes surpassed £9bn. According to official figures, the Climate Change Act >will cost the UK economy more than £300bn by 2030, costing households £875 >each year. >Hinkley Point C is proving costly > >SMRs also ensure that the British government can avoid a repetition of the >growing fiasco over the cost of Hinkley Point. An expert in engineering >capacity and financing energy plants, who spoke to The Reg on condition of >anonymity, said Hinkley Point "could cost the UK as much as £81bn if maximum >financing costs are included". > >"I think the only reason the British government is going ahead with Hinkley >Point is the hook it gives them over the French government during Brexit >negotiations. If the French turn nasty, the UK can threaten to scrap Hinkley >Point - as it is French contractors who will largely build it." > >And yet SMRs face daunting development costs, and mind-boggling technical >uncertainties. Like all nuclear sites they inevitably involve high costs, the >problems of expensive decommissioning, the risk of accidents and waste >disposal. > >Sceptics include former government adviser professor Gordon MacKerron, who has >described SMRs as "a classic case of supply-push technology development - no >potential user of SMRs, mostly electric utilities, has expressed any serious >interest in them." > >The future energy market may be very different by 2025 when the first SMR >could come on stream even under the most optimistic circumstances. The UK >could by then be dependent on cheaper wind generation, with storage, electric >cars, and other flexible technologies coming to the fore. Or the market could >be dominated by abundant and inexpensive shale gas. > >Crucially, the government has not been enthusiastic. Tom Wintle, deputy >director of SMRs and nuclear decommissioning at the Department for Energy and >Climate Change, told a recent conference: "SMRs will need to deliver energy >cost-competitively if they are to play a part in the UK's future energy mix. >The government is also committed to keeping down the cost of that energy for >consumers, so there is a key challenge there for the nuclear industry as a >whole and for SMRs." Hardly a ringing endorsement. >The Brit startups running with SMRs > >If the government is hoping for a prosperous export market for SMRs, it will >face a variety of hurdles. First, a total of nine countries are currently >involved in SMR development, including newcomers such as Argentina. Secondly, >there are no current licensing standards. The World Nuclear Association >stated: "Design certification, construction and operation licence costs are >not necessarily less than for large reactors, placing a major burden on >developers and proponents." > >It added that several developers had utilised the Canadian Nuclear Safety >Commission's pre-licensing Vendor Design Review process, which, in Phase 1, >involved 5,000 hours of staff time - an expensive process. And yet, and almost >unknown to the public, a number of remarkable SMR projects have started in the >UK. > >One is Tokamak Energy. In late 2016, amid the Oxfordshire countryside, the >UK's newest fusion reactor was turned on for the first time. The reactor aims >to produce a record-breaking plasma temperature of 100 million Celsius for a >privately funded venture. This is almost seven times hotter than the centre of >the Sun and the temperature necessary for controlled fusion. > >Its CEO is Dr David Kingham, former managing director of the highly successful >startup incubator Oxford Innovation back in the mid 1990s. David has seen >hundreds of startups come and go and yet is willing to back this high-risk >project. > >"Our ST40 is a machine that will show fusion temperatures are possible in >compact, cost-effective reactors," he said. "This will allow fusion power to >be achieved in years, not decades. We are already halfway to the goal of >fusion energy; with hard work we will deliver fusion power at commercial scale >by 2030." > >A second ambitious project by Moltex Energy involves molten salt reactor >development. It claims to be developing "radically better" nuclear reactors, >and its scientific advisers include Tim Abram, Westinghouse professor of >nuclear fuel technology at Manchester University of Manchester, Cambridge >University's Derek Fray, and Atkins nuclear technical director at engineering >group Paul Littler. > >The big boys are also prowling. That £1.25bn Rolls-Royce consortium includes >Amec Foster Wheeler, Nuvia and Arup. Rolls-Royce has submitted detailed >designs to the government for SMRs capable of generating 220MW, and that could >be doubled up to 440MW. > >US SMR specialist Nuscale, based in Oregon, is developing a new design based >on technology that originally came from research by the US Department of >Energy. Nuscale has even declared an interest in developing manufacturing >capability and capacity in the UK. > >Other startups include Transatomic Power and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates' >Terrapower, with a Chinese research programme emerging in the background. > >In the 1960s, 25 per cent of the UK's power capacity came from nuclear. >Schoolchildren were told this was the power of the future. If SMRs can >overcome the hurdles, they could take us - and our data centres - back to that >future. ® > > > >_______________________________________________ >Link mailing list >[email protected] >http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link -- Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/ Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 2 6288 6916 http://about.me/roger.clarke mailto:[email protected] http://www.xamax.com.au/ Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law University of N.S.W. Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
