Skip to main content

In Small Packages

udall The plausibility of using small nuclear reactors in situations where a full-scale reactor might be seen as overkill is an idea pushed, as you would imagine, by vendors with such reactors in their portfolios. In fact, a group of those vendors travelled around Washington during the early fall months scaring up as much interest in their wares to anyone who wanted to listen. Not just think tanks, but the NRC has hosted a presentation on small units.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko told the NRC forum on small reactors in mid-October that his agency needs to ensure it has adequate resources to plan for detailed review of small and medium reactors. Among the issues needing resolution is focusing on specific technical designs.

“We need to hear from the industry about the demand for these reactors, and the industry’s development and deployment priorities,” Jaczko said.

Rod Adams has a terrific discussion of the NRC forum up at Atomic Insights.

Jaczko sounds measured but open, about what one would expect. It’s not exactly kick the can, but the can still ended up in the offices of Sen. Mark Udall (D-Col.) who decided to move the conversation forward a bit. He’s submitted an amendment to the Energy Act of 2005 to allocate $250 million to the Department of Energy to investigate ways to lower the cost of building new reactors.

Now, the small reactors are not the meat of the bill. Here’s how he describes its purpose:

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a research and development and demonstration program to reduce manufacturing and construction costs relating to nuclear reactors, and for other purposes.

And here’s what he wants to be researched:

(A) modular and small-scale reactors

(B) balance-of-plant issues [that is, the elements of electricity generation not including nuclear reactors – things like turbines];

(C) cost-efficient manufacturing and construction;

(D) licensing issues; and

(E) enhanced proliferation controls.

So a bundle of thing, but this is the first mention of small reactors we’ve seen in legislation to date.


Interestingly, stories we’ve seen about this and the speech Udall gave on the floor of the Senate introducing it all fasten on the small reactors, though he didn’t mention them at all in his speech.

According to a report in the examiner, Colorado's senior U.S. senator has proposed a bill that would give the federal government authority to research whether small-scale, modular nuclear reactors are a feasible contributor to the nation's energy supply.

That’s from Nuclear Street. Our friend Dan Yurman over at Idaho Samizdat also focused on it:

Colorado Senator Mark Udall, has introduced a bill to authorize federal R&D for small, modular reactors. Udall said in a speech on the Senate floor he believes nuclear energy is an important part of the nation's response to global warming.

Here’s video of his speech if you want to take a listen.


It seems churlish to talk of small reactors and not provide a way for you to learn about them. So visit NuScale Power, Babcock & Wilcox, even the still-incubating TerraPower. That’ll get you started.

Sen. Mark Udall. We suspect every western politician has photos like this.


Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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?

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…