Skip to main content

Fluor Invests in NuScale

Hopkins_John_2.jpgYou know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what?

NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C.

Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now.

Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said.

And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough:

Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misappropriated at least $53 million in investor funds and used the money for self-dealing transactions," according to an SEC document. The SEC action did not allege any wrongdoing on the part of the nuclear firm, but the loss of its lead investor forced NuScale into dormancy.

This was a Ponzi scheme. NuScale had nothing to do with it, of course, just as Bernard Madoff’s clients had nothing to do with his scheming, either. They were all victims. So Fluor’s investment puts NuScale back on a full footing.

So what does NuScale aim to sell? This is how the company describes its technology:

NuScale Power, Inc., is commercializing a modular, scalable 45 Megawatt electric Light Water Reactor nuclear power plant. Each NuScale module has its own combined containment vessel and reactor system, and its own designated turbine-generator set. NuScale power plants are scalable, allowing for a single facility to have just one or up to 12 units. In a multi-module plant, one unit can be taken out of service without affecting the operation of the others.

This is interesting, too.

In a NuScale system, the reactor pressure vessel contains both the nuclear fuel, or reactor, and the steam generators. Water in the reactor circulates using a convection process known as natural circulation. This is also described as a passive safety system because no pumps or other mechanical devices are required to circulate the water.

Passive is bad in relationships, but good in industrial plants because it allows the reactor to take care of itself (broadly speaking) instead of depending on operator action or an electric connection. If the plant loses power, for example, it can remain operational (again, broadly speaking) until it can be safely shut down. It doesn’t make other plants unsafe, but it gives this one an interesting profile.

We’re not really plumping for NuScale – may the best company win and all that – and the small reactor field is crowded but still very young. No design has been licensed by the NRC, though the commission has signaled that it is ready for applications – particularly for light water reactors like NuScale’s. It’s a technology the NRC already understands well. But it’s nice that NuScale escaped an awful situation – and it’s heartening to see the nuclear energy industry moving forward in productive ways.

So – good news all around.

---

And now, your moment of fun:

"I don't care what the nuclear energy industry says," [Dr. Helen] Caldicott said through an Internet phone call. "I speak to you as a doctor. We are absolutely credible."

Almost sounds like Dr. McCoy: "I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer." Or a credible critic of nuclear energy, for that matter. But Dr. McCoy never pretended to be one, did he?

Fluor’s John Hopkins. If he visits Baltimore, he may want to use his middle initial and avoid the teasing.

Comments

DocForesight said…
It seems to me, Solyndra and all solar companies, suffer from the same "dark days" problem -- has to do with the inherent nature of daily sunrise and sunset.

They can't compete, period.

BTW, good news for NuScale. Full speed ahead, captain.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...