Skip to main content

What Happens at 150 Million Degrees

One of the more exciting developments in the nuclear realm over the last couple of years have been been small reactors, those that generate less than 350 megawatts of electricity. While enthusiasm sometimes translates into a business model and sometimes does not, both the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have sponsored workshops and meetings specifically about them and several bills have been floated in Congress to support their development.
There have been a lot of reasons bruited for the interest in small reactors;  two are that they are less expensive than a full scale reactor while providing the same clean air benefits and most of the proposed designs can be built in a factory and sent fully constructed to a site. Oh, and a third reason: the site can serve a locality that would not necessarily benefit from a full-size reactor or even might want to use them off the main electricity grid (think army bases). So all that favors continued interest.
But business is business and small reactor makers have to make deals and show they are serious and make sure we know about it.
Power generation company Babcock & Wilcox Co. said Tuesday it plans to open a testing facility for its new class of mini nuclear reactors at the new Center for Advanced Engineering and Research Center in Bedford County.
“Mini nuclear reactors” sound like flux capacitors to us – they’re small, yes, but not pee-wee.
Bedford County is in Virginia and the testing facility will bring in some needed jobs. I found this detail a bit amusing:
The Virginia Tobacco Commission, which promotes economic growth and development in tobacco-dependent communities, approved a $2.4 million grant for the project.
Well, better a grant for this purpose than for tobacco, yes? In fact, the description tells the tale. The commission moves former tobacco-growing counties to new areas of interest – including small reactor testing. A net good, I’d say.
You can read more about mPower here.
Well, it will produce energy, but we won't use this energy and make electricity out of it. The energy that we produce will be released into the atmosphere. We won't be using this energy in any commercial way. It's supposed to produce 10 times as much energy as we put into the plasma. That would be about 500 megawatts. That's quite a bit. About enough to feed a medium-sized city.
Indeed. Speaking is Norbert Holtkamp, ITER’s principal deputy director general, and what he’s talking about is thermonuclear energy and the application of plasma physics to electricity-generating nuclear fusion plants.
Whenever I think nuclear fusion, I think hobby, because it’s something you can do at home – if you assemble the pieces and don’t mind watching your electricity meter spin like a top when you flip the switch on your reactor. It takes a lot of energy to generate a little energy through fusion. Well, it does in your tabletop reactor, anyway.
But the ITER project takes a different approach – I think. Read this description by Holtkamp on how it works:
The ITER is a tokamak, and a tokamak is a magnetic confinement device. What that means is big magnetic coils with very strong magnetic fields enclosing plasma. Through the plasma in the tokamak, one has to drive a very high current to heat up the plasma to 150 million degrees Celsius, which is about ten times the temperature of the sun's core. At this temperature the nuclei start to fuse. That's why it's called a fusion reactor. In the fusion process, energy is released (which we can use) later on to produce electricity.
It’s not the “very high current” that arouses curiosity – that’s well understood in the fusion community – it’s stabilizing the plasma once you get there.
Holtkamp doesn’t directly answer that question.
Frankly, I fully expected this statement:
ITER is the first fusion reactor that will produce much more energy than it uses.
to be directly followed with this one:
That still is a step that needs to be proven and there are scientific and technical questions that need to be answered and will be answered through the construction and operation of ITER.
Fusion does not need to be proven only proven practical. Thus has it always been.
Funning aside, ITER is fascinating and full of all kinds of potential – regardless of whether that step is ever proven – and if proven and made practical, would be a tremendous breakthrough in energy generation. I must confess a weakness for big dreams that seem all kinds of impractical – they always seem the firmest basis for human progress.
See here for more – a lot to explore at the ITER site.
A cutaway view of the ITER tokamak. See here for a better cutaway and a description of parts of the tokamak.


Anonymous said…
Small reactors cannot be economical at this point. Today's large reactor designs have trouble competing with traditional power sources because of capital costs. Unfortunately, when you halve or quarter the power output of a large reactor, you don't halve or quarter the capital cost. In fact, the cost is reduced by a smaller factor.

You may argue that their modularity or simplicity may reduce capital costs further, but I would argue that if that simpler/modular technology existed today in a proven usable form, it would be in place in larger reactor designs. Furthermore, you may be able to assemble the reactor pressure vessel and ship that in one piece, but that's such a small (physically speaking) component of a power plant. Everything else is construction on-site.
Anonymous said…
I would not give up on the possibility of modularizing other components of the plant. NSSS components like steam generators, for example. On the balance of plant side, arrays of turbo generators could be mostly fabricated offsite and then moved to the site for completion and integration. The site-specific plant structures (containment, auxiliary building, cooling tower) would still have to be on-site construction.
Inertial fusion is ahead said…
The statement, "ITER is the first fusion reactor that will produce much more energy than it uses," is wrong. The National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is likely to achieve this goal within the next year, at the same time that ITER is still just a large hole in the ground.

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot., the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…