Skip to main content

DOE Awards NuScale Second Small Reactor Grant


Let’s see what’s behind the headline, via the AP:
The U.S. Department of Energy said Thursday that it has awarded an Oregon company a grant to help it design and obtain federal approval for a kind of nuclear power plant - small modular units that can be built in a factory and shipped to installation sites.
That Oregon company is NuScale, a startup company with strong ties to Oregon State University The first DOE award went to the mPower small modular reactor design being developed by long-established Babcock & Wilcox, a company that has been building small reactors for the U.S. Navy for decades. NuScale’s technology approach is unique and allows capacity additions in 45 megawatt increments. In addition, its safety features directly address the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. It’s a pressurized water reactor – as is mPower – with a lot of new ideas regarding safety.
[NuScale offers] a smaller, scalable version of pressurized water reactor technology with natural safety features which enable it to safely shut down and self-cool, with no operator action, no AC or DC power, and no external water. Each NuScale Power Module is 45 MW and has a fully integrated, factory-built containment and reactor pressure vessel.
NuScale lists its attributes:
  • The ability to safely shut down and self-cool, indefinitely, with no operator action, AC or DC power, and no additional water, with NuScale's Triple Crown for nuclear plant safety™ .
  • Seven barriers, between the nuclear fuel and the local community and environment, as compared to three for commercial plants currently in construction and operation.
  • A complete containment and reactor vessel module that can be shipped in segments, by rail, truck, or barge, for quick installation at the plant site.
  • Below grade operating bays for the NuScale Power Modules that are enclosed in an aircraft-impact-resistant seismic Category 1 reactor building.
  • Natural circulation, coolant flow residual heat removal and emergency core cooling systems are powered by natural forces, gravity.
  • A common pool that provides seismic dampening and radiation shielding for the NuScale Power Module.
  • A 60-year plant life
  • A projected capacity factor of >95%
Much of this describes the potential benefits of small reactors in general. But some of it, especially its approach to safety, leverages a patent portfolio NuScale has been building. I asked Paul Genoa, NEI’s senior director for policy development, about this:
“Just to be clear,” Genoa said, “all U.S. nuclear facilities exceed the stringent safety regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However, just like the new Westinghouse AP-1000 plants under construction in Georgia and South Carolina, these new small reactor designs being supported by DOE are increasingly using innovative and elegant approaches to ensuring that safety.”
So there you go.
NEI offers a very good description of the implications of the DOE award:
DOE’s selection criteria focused on reactor technologies that have unique and innovative safety features to mitigate the consequences of severe natural events similar to those at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi. NuScale’s press statement noted that its design’s “unique and proprietary break-through technology” using natural forces of gravity, convection and conduction will allow “safe and simpler operations and safe shutdown.”
And why this is different from the B&W award:
By contrast, DOE’s first solicitation focused on small reactor designs similar to certified large reactors that had the potential to be brought quickly to design certification and licensing. Late last year DOE selected a team consisting of Babcock & Wilcox, Bechtel International and Tennessee Valley Authority to deploy B&W’s 180-megawatt mPower small reactor design by 2022.
You’ll notice the team aspect of the mPower project. That’s true of NuScale, too: it is working with Rolls-Royce (yes, the car people, but they also produce small reactors for the British Navy-see the link), Fluor and Energy Northwest.
More from the AP, with some key dates moving forward:
The company hopes to have the design certified by 2019 and the first commercially operational project working by 2023 at the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho, [NuScale Chief Commercial Officer Michael] McGough said.
This is spectacular news. We’ve been hearing about small reactors for years. Now, here they are.

Comments

jimwg said…
Throwing seed money is one thing (failed "green" startups have been thrown so much more!); has the Fed government actually committed itself even in intent to actually purchasing more than one or two token production units -- forget putting its name on any major plants? I'm not throwing cold water on a hopeful project; we're dealing with an administration steeped on presenting hallow facades of fairness while throwing nukes peanuts while lavishing its true fave pet projects of its Green constituency. I'd like to be wrong, but that Russian "shame on me" proverb keeps popping up...

James Greenidge
Queens NY
SteveK9 said…
I guess these days we even have to celebrate a plan for 6 years to achieve certification from the NRC.
whglid said…
One minor comment - the Rolls-Royce company identified is not "the car company". The rights to the Rolls-Royce car name are presently with BMW and have nothing to do with the Rolls-Royce who will be working with NuScale.

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…

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.

Huh?

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…