Skip to main content

DOE Moves Forward on Small Reactors

Writer Reese Palley has quite a little rant going on at the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Unfortunately, all the arguments for developing and licensing small, modular nuclear reactors fell on deaf ears at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The commission has no immediate plans even to begin assessing traveling wave or any other small nuclear technology.

It is not as if mini-nuclear technologies are experimental and unproven. [etc.]

Palley is the author of The Answer: Why Only Inherently Safe Mini Nuclear Power Plants Can Save Our World, which I haven’t read. He certainly wants you to know he’s all over those small reactors.

Unfortunately, though, his piece was published today. So was this, at the Department of Energy’s site:

The U.S. Department of Energy today announced the first step toward manufacturing small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) in the United States, demonstrating the Administration’s commitment to advancing U.S. manufacturing leadership in low-carbon, next generation energy technologies and restarting the nation’s nuclear industry. Through the draft Funding Opportunity Announcement announced today, the Department will establish cost-shared agreements with private industry to support the design and licensing of SMRs.

Palley was talking about the NRC, but if DOE is helping with the licensing process, then the NRC will be prepared to review those licenses. The seriousness of this effort was underscored by a quick-to-follow press release from Westinghouse:

"Westinghouse will apply for DOE's small modular reactor investment funds with a consortium of utilities. Access to this investment fund helps lower the barrier to market entry for American companies. Virtually all energy sources that feed the national grid have been developed through public investments in public-private research and development partnerships.

So the die is cast. I took a look over at Terrapower, which Palley touts in his article, but it doesn’t have a press release about this. NuScale hasn’t weighed in either. Babcock and Wilcox had this interesting bit of news – from last week:

Babcock & Wilcox is to restructure its commercial nuclear business, separating its small modular reactor operations from its other nuclear energy related businesses.

The company said that the move was in response to "changing market conditions, growth opportunities and the continuing progress of its small modular reactor (SMR) business."

So there’s that.

Palley’s article confused me because the DOE plan had been in the works for awhile. It’s just a coincidence that the details of the plan sprang forth the same day, but in any event, it’s pleasing to see work moving forward on small reactors. It ought to even please Palley.

Comments

Drew C said…
This is business as usual for the US government. The DOE funds will go to the large established players with the lobbying clout like Westinghouse. Startups like Nuscale and Terrapower have a snowballs chance at getting this money. This DOE program isn't about nurturing innovation in SMR development as much as it is just another round of corporate welfare.
Atomikrabbit said…
I don’t believe the TerraPower design qualifies for the government definition of a SMR (< 300MW). Although I can’t find it in their website material, I believe they are planning for a 500-1000 MW design, and in fact have moved away from the Travelling Wave concept towards something closer to the IFR (but without the pyroprocessing).
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/22/twr-vs-ifr
seth said…
Why is that the NEI never points out that the DOE holds almost $80B in nuclear industry funds ostensibly for decommissioning, waste and insurance very little of which is likely to be used. When a teeny tiny portion of those funds is used for nuclear research it is always portrayed as a giant federal subsidy. What it is in fact is an odious dereliction of federal duty to support an industry with its own funds.
Anonymous said…
I've always wondered how it is legal for the DoE to continue collecting funds for the development of a waste repository when they are not in fact doing that. In the world of private business that would be considered fraud, or at least breach of fiduciary responsibility, taking money for doing a job you are not doing. Of course, the whole shebang is in violation of federal law when Obama got together with Harry Reid and Gregory Jaczko and violated the NWPA by trashing Yucca Mountain, so I guess they think embezzling a few tens of billions of public dollars is no big deal.
Anonymous said…
The money in the Nuclear Waste Fund is not "nuclear industry funds." It was paid into the fund by utility ratepayers specifically for construction of a deep geological waste repository, not for any R&D project some in the industry find intriguing.
seth said…
I'm sorry Anonymous is having so much trouble with this very simple concept. The $80B fund is administered under the DOE's umbrella invested no doubt in some congressman's favorite pork barrel project like bridges to nowhere. The money could be INVESTED instead in nuke R&D just like Boeing invested in the 787. Note that the UK is now considering INVESTING in the GE Prism SMR as the preferred means of destroying its nuclear waste.
Anonymous said…
Except that's incorrect.

"The fees paid by utilities are deposited quarterly into the Nuclear Waste Fund and
invested in U.S. Treasury securities."

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg47642/html/CHRG-109shrg47642.htm

Either way, they're not "industry funds," no matter how much Seth might want to spend them.
Anonymous said…
As for the UK, their National Decommissioning Authority is apparently about to reject the reactor disposition option for a number of reasons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/24/sellafield-plutonium-reactor-plans-rejected?INTCMP=SRCH

If you're going to chide someone for being wrong, you should make sure your facts are right first.

Popular posts from this blog

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…