Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy R&D Strategy by EPRI and INL

Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat beat me to this story so I'm going to copy from him ;-):
A new report co-authored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) details how nuclear energy research, development, demonstration and deployment can help reduce U.S. carbon emissions and bolster energy security.

The report [pdf], A Strategy for Nuclear Energy Research and Development, outlines the research necessary to create options for the deployment of nuclear energy in the decades ahead. The report also examines nuclear energy’s relevance to nonproliferation and the need for the United States to maintain international leadership in developing nuclear energy.

...

The strategic plan defines six goals to expand the safe and economical use of nuclear energy:

1. Maintain today’s nuclear fleet of light water reactors
2. Significantly expand the fleet with advanced light water reactors
3. Develop non-electric applications for high-temperature reactors
4. Assure safe, long-term used fuel management
5. Assure long-term nuclear sustainability
6. Strengthen United States leadership internationally.

...

Total funding needs from government and industry for the proposed research agenda covering the initial 2010-2015 period are estimated at $3.5 billion.

Comments

Charles Barton said…
If I ever needed confirmation that thinking about the future of energy in general and nuclear energy in particular at INL leaves much to be desired, the EPRI/INL report provides ample evidence. All of the energy options considered by "A Strategy for Nuclear Energy Research and Development" are very expensive, and one Carbon Capture and Sequestration is impractical because of the energy input it requires. Were there no lower cost options, this might be acceptable, but the report does not consider the possibility of developing Molten Salt Reactor technology, despite its potential to be a lower cost alternative to all of the technologies mentioned in the report. Isn't the problem here that Molten Salt Reactor technology was not invented at INL, and therefore it gets no attention from INL researchers.
Anonymous said…
"does not consider the possibility of developing Molten Salt Reactor technology, despite its potential to be a lower cost alternative to all of the technologies mentioned in the report."

Interesting. Have there been economic analyses backing this conclusion? Citations?

And has anyone completed a commercial design for a MSR plant? I know there was an experiment-scale project in the 1960s but what advances since then?
Anonymous said…
There are, as yet, no modern design studies for MSRs that would include the new technologies that would likely be used (e.g., closed gas Brayton cycle power conversion rather than a steam cycle).

But the capital cost of a MSR would be very similar to the solid-fuel variant called an Advanced High Temperature Reactor (AHTR), which the DOE has been studying. Oak Ridge National Laboratory issued a report in 2004 that predicted that AHTRs would have capital costs appromately 55 to 60% of the cost of modular helium reactors (MHRs) and sodium fast reactor (SFRs).

So yes, it is likely that MSRs could be substantially less expensive than other types of reactors.
Charles Barton said…
Two Anonymous comments? Wow that takes a lof of courage.
Anonymous 1: You might start with "Cost of electricity from Molten Salt Reactors (MSR)" by R. W. Moir of Lawrence Livermore National Laborator
Nuclear Technology 138 93-95 (2002)10/2/2001
I have discussed numerous cost savings measures that Moir did not consider. See discussions in Nuclear Green, May 2008

Anonymous 2 relies on the circular argument that since there are no MSR research projects, there should be no MSR research, in fact MSR research is geing conducted in Russia and France. Your assertion that there are no cost advantages to MSR in comparison to Advanced High Temperature Reactor reactors. in fact MNSRs, have superior neutron economy because of continuous FP stripping. MSRs have superior safety because of of their negative coefficient of reactivity, and they are capable of both load following and serving in peak reserve capacity. MSRs can be mass produced, significantly lowering unit price, Finally, MSR fuel can be continuously reprocessed as can blanket salt. The cost of MSR fuel reprocessing is a small fraction of the price of solid fuel reprocessing. Additionally there is no fuel fabrication/refabrication expense.
Bill said…
Hey Charles, Anon#2 is agreeing with you about the potential cost of MSR technology, with the caveat that there's as yet no fully worked-out design to point to.
Anonymous said…
there are two different anonymous posters on this thread, Mr. Barton. I'm the first one, and I was just asking for information. I thought that was one of the purposes of this forum.

My job requires me to be anonymous when posting to blogs. Not sure why you feel the need to make it a manhood issue?

I was simply asking for more information about MSR R&D post-1960s, and you somehow decided I was outside your door with protest placards. This sort of reflexively defensive posture will not serve the industry well as its moves into the nuclear renaissance era. It doesn't fly with the public.

I'd still like to see some citations for the long list of advantages you cite in your most recent post. I'll check out the sources you do mention.
Helpful Heloise said…
FWIW Anonymous, this Blogger version allows visitors to create unique names w/out sacrificing anonymity. Just click the Name/URL radio button when posting a comment and you can fill in a name, any name. (See comments from "Dirty Euro" and "Man Overboard" in the above post.) Commenters with identities, even the most curious ones, help make for a more comprehensible conversation.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …