Marcus Seidl is a German nuclear professional who received his PhD in nuclear physics in 2002, a year after his home country decided that it would exit nuclear … [Read More...] about Atomic Show #298 – Marcus Seidl – Researching small modular reactors near Hamburg, Germany
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are gaining increased attention as a major opportunity in clean power production. They are a welcome tool in the necessary transition from an energy system dominated by hydrocarbon combustion to one that produces more power for more people with dramatically reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
As a partner in Nucleation Capital, a venture capital fund that focuses on the commercial opportunities that are anticipated by advanced nuclear technologies and power systems, I thought it would be useful to discuss reasons why so many are eager for the arrival of the growing slate of smaller nuclear reactors that are under development. For important reasons there are few mentions of individual companies.
Like traditional large nuclear reactors, SMRs generate power from fission. They don’t produce any air pollution components like NOX, SOX, mercury or fly ash. Unlike large reactors, which were built as large infrastructure projects, the expectation is that SMRs can be constructed more quickly from prefabricated components so that they can be rolled out at an increasing rate once they have completed a necessary product demonstration phase.
Some energy observers see SMRs as the appropriate evolution of nuclear for use with a more distributed grid. Others believe the sector has been widely “hyped” in online energy forums but won’t be available in the time frame needed to address climate change. So how should those for whom the term SMR is just now entering their lexicon think about this technology?
Why does fission excite anyone?
Uranium and thorium are two of nature’s most incredible clean energy storage assets. If completely fissioned, a handful of nuclear fuel weighing a kilogram contains more stored energy than 50 large tanker trucks filled with petroleum.
At the current diesel fuel price of $5.60 per gallon, 50 trucks can carry more than $3,000,000 worth of fuel. In contrast, nuclear power plant owners pay approximately $1,700 per kilogram of fuel in the form of finished assemblies.
The tiny waste production per unit energy released is an inherent aspect of concentrated fission reactions. Unlike combustion, all ingredients needed for fission are contained inside fission fuels. (Combustion needs an external source of oxygen in greater masses than the fuel itself.) The mass of fission wastes is slightly less than the mass of fission fuel; the mass of combustion wastes are about 2.5 times the mass of input fuel.
No fission product wastes need to be routinely removed to allow the reaction to continue operating for its design fuel cycle. None need to be discharged to the environment. Fission reactors are clean enough, safe enough and independent enough to operate inside sealed submarines carrying crews of several dozen people. Those submarines have gone to every part of every ocean on the planet.
Fission even works in the vacuum of deep space.
Those physical and economic facts almost beg power plant designers to think about building a wide variety of machines in order to use that amazing source of energy in as many parts of the diverse global energy markets as possible. Power systems using combustion fuels range in size from model trains to multi GWe power stations. Fission-based power systems need sufficient size to support a chain reaction, and to provide adequate shielding, but that still leaves a wide spectrum of potential applications and sizes.
Today, advanced nuclear innovators are designing reactors that will meet the needs of a much broader range of energy users than traditional nuclear could previously address.
Why did fission reactor unit size get so large?
The earliest reactors were small; the core of EBR-I (Experimental Breeder Reactor I) was roughly the size of cylinder that could snuggly contain an American football. It produced a 1.5 MW of heat and 200 kW of electricity. That was enough to power the building that housed it.
But since the dawn of the First Atomic Age, the primary design trend has been to strive for ever larger units in hopes of reducing the cost of the electricity they generate. In the 1950s, 60s and 70s, engineering degree programs taught that the “economy of scale” meant that equipment cost did not grow as rapidly as capacity.
For example, a pump that could produce ten times as much flow should only cost four times as much based on cost computations using input materials.
Design engineers learned by experience that bigger factories, bigger refineries and bigger mines could produce cheaper commodity products.
Seeing nuclear power plants as electricity factories, they could not help but believe that achieving economy of scale required them to design ever larger reactors and to place them in increasingly large groups at massive power stations.
There is a diseconomy of scale with super-sized units
Larger units can successfully use the economy of scale to lower the cost per unit of output but it isn’t the only kind of scale that can drive down costs. Ever larger units can also run into diseconomies of scale that plague mega-projects in construction, mass transit, sports complexes, and airports.
The experience of the industry in building the Vogtle AP1000s shows that there is such a thing as too large. In contrast, the economies of scale that we believe will aid in the appeal of SMRs takes the form of mass production and is expected to enable the construction of SMRs to more closely follow the declining cost curves experienced by wind and solar projects.
How can smaller reactors be produced and operated economically?
After observing the challenges associated with building only very large nuclear plants, there is a growing field of nuclear system developers who consider nuclear power plants to be a product, not a factory. A phrase that is repeatedly heard at gatherings of modern nuclear system developers is “We want to build airplanes, not airports.”
Entrepreneurial companies that see nuclear power systems as products understand that “scale” means building large quantities of the same product. They need to be positioned to meet the needs of a sufficient number of customers who want to buy enough machines to provide the opportunity to capture cost reductions from “experience curves” where cost declines as a result of cumulative product volume.
One advantage of smaller systems is the improved ability to use factory manufacturing techniques. Of course, the components used in conventional large reactors are produced in factories, but then they are individually shipped to the site to be assembled into an operating plant. With reactors that have the size and complexity closer to that of large ships or commercial aircraft, it is possible to assemble and transport complete or nearly complete products.
Factory workforces have many advantages over site construction workforces. They can improve productivity by repeating similar tasks regularly, They can live and work in cities served by mass transit. They can implement quality assurance techniques and environmental consistence systems that are difficult to achieve at remote large plant assembly sites.
Several of the entrepreneurial advanced nuclear companies are looking to scale their businesses using a hybrid approach. They recognize the need to build large quantities of their power- and heat-generating machines but they have found that there’s a limited universe of customers who want to operate nuclear power systems under current and foreseeable oversight regimes.
One solution to this problem is “Energy as a Service.” Companies can build, own and operate a fleet of their own small modular reactors to produce electricity and heat as the products they sell to willing customers. At least some of the companies following this path are keenly aware that there are numerous advantages to co-locating a significant number of the members of their nuclear fission fleets on each site they develop.
That statement is especially true under current regulatory requirements for security, oversight and quality assurance. Large numbers of smaller units on a single site also take advantage of repeatable, consistent work for the inevitable site-specific parts of erecting a power station. They can share transmission and cooling infrastructure, training, emergency response and administrative facilities.
One more variation on the SMR business model is the detectable emergence of developers that want to build on skills they’ve gained in deploying, owning and operating other kinds of power systems. They believe that certain SMRs, once designs are approved, can be readily integrated by project developers that specialize in engineering, permitting, construction, local politics, working with regional operators, and developing logistical supply chains for projects that blend clean energy production for local grids with water purification, carbon capture, hydrogen production and other revenue opportunities.
What about the waste for small modular reactors?
Lindsay Krall, Rodney Ewing and Allison Macfarlane recently published a paper titled Nuclear Waste from Small Reactors in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science describing the larger surface to volume ratio of smaller reactors as a disadvantage.
Aside: Neutron Bytes published an article with extensive commentary on the study; though there is some overlap between that article and this one, this contains a few additional points of interest. End Aside.
The paper authors chose to conduct their study using publicly available information on three (out of dozens) small modular reactor designs. They looked at an early version of the NuScale Power Module, Terrestrial Energy’s IMSR™, and Toshiba’s 4S (a reactor system that has not been actively marketed since 2011.)
To the surprise of the lead author, that paper received unusual attention from the press.
I didn’t really know how the article would be released. There was a copy of the paper circulated to the media or to the press some five days in advance of the article’s publication. So, reactor developers were contacted by the press about the article before it was even published. As a scientist, I was just thinking, “Oh, thank God, this paper got accepted, and I don’t have to work with it anymore.” But then the release of the paper shocked me.Diaz-Maurin,François Interview: Small modular reactors get a reality check about their waste, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jun 17, 2022
The attention was likely related to press releases issued by the host institutions before the study was actually published.
Both NuScale and Terrestrial Energy challenged the study’s conclusions about their systems. Dr. Jose Reyes, NuScale CTO, wondered about the way advanced copies of the study were released to the press and asked PNAS editor-in-chief May R. Berenbaum if PNAS had implemented a new policy about paper promotion.
It seems likely that summaries of the paper’s tenuous conclusions will be repeatedly introduced into discussions of small modular reactors. If not fully understood, the assertions about increased waste production might hamper SMR deployment.
The paper stated that smaller cores leak a larger portion of the fission neutrons and those neutrons activate structural materials. It also stated that increased neutron leakage leads to lower fuel efficiency because a reactor with increased neutron leakage needs a higher concentration of fissile material to maintain criticality.
Discussions with several nuclear design engineers that are not working on SMRs confirmed that those statements contained some truth and were worth consideration, but also described how they did not tell the complete story about waste generation from smaller nuclear plants.
Those design engineers pointed out that a marginal increase in the amount of waste generated per unit energy output would not make much of a difference in the effort needed to address long term storage or disposal of radioactive materials.
The paper expressly ignored the potential to reduce radioactive waste by recycling material and fuel.
This study also neglects to consider reprocessing, recycling, and dilution because these treatments will not eliminate the need for the storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal of radioactive materials.Krall, L.M.; Macfarlane A.M.; Ewing, R. C. “Nuclear waste from small modular reactors” PNAS Vol. 119, No. 23 May 31, 2022
In her interview with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dr. Krall pushed back on the headlines that emphasized the high end of the range of estimates offered. She said that high end estimate of increased waste generation only applied to sodium, a coolant proposed for use by several small and advanced reactor developers.
…for a sodium-cooled reactor, for instance, that sodium coolant is likely to become low-level waste at the end of the reactor’s lifetime, because it becomes contaminated and activated during reactor operation. So, the “up to 30 times more waste” that’s been driving the headlines, it’s mostly the sodium coolant.Diaz-Maurin,François Interview: Small modular reactors get a reality check about their waste, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jun 17, 2022
For sodium waste, reuse in new reactors has the potential for a dramatic decrease in waste that needs to be processed for disposal, but only if there is a growing population of sodium-cooled reactors.
The potential for reuse of sodium from reactors is limited. The most likely utilization would be as a reactor coolant, but there are currently no LMFRs being constructed where sodium waste is available. (Emphasis added)IAEA Radioactive Sodium Waste Treatment and Conditioning, Jan 2007. p. 46
Small reactors also have some advantages in fuel and nuclear plant material systems that include recycling. They are going to be easier to disassemble for some of the same reasons that they will be easier to assemble. Recycling factories can be less costly when designed to handle a more steady flow of smaller pieces and parts.
The Krall et. al. study also did not credit advanced reactors with fuel efficiency gains that arise from using operating temperatures that are significantly higher than those that are possible in large light water reactors.
Few of the teams designing SMRs point to reductions in waste generation as a major selling point, but quite a few of the designers point out the potential that fast reactors have for using recycled materials from the current used nuclear fuel stockpile and describe the efficiency gains from reactor systems that are capable of achieving much higher temperatures than conventional light water reactors.
Engineering is a profession that recognizes tradeoffs. Improvements in one design measure often results in a reduced performance in another design measure. Establishing priorities and determining the best overall choices requires expert, detailed knowledge that often isn’t available to outside academics. Small modular reactor developers and their backers have evidently determined that improving passive heat removal, constructibility, financial performance and customer acceptance are more important than the potential for a marginal increase in waste generation.
Waste from smaller modular reactors needs to be well managed, but neither the waste nor the misleading media headlines that appear to detract from the clear benefits of this emerging technology, should be seen as significant hurdles to their successful development.
Marcus Seidl is a German nuclear professional who received his PhD in nuclear physics in 2002, a year after his home country decided that it would exit nuclear energy in favor of investing in a large roll out of renewable energy sources.
He has worked for German utility companies, for a vendor erecting a state-of-the-art high neutron flux research reactor, and is now employed by PreusseneElektra as a nuclear physicist. He also teaches part time at Technische Universität München | TUM · Department of Nuclear Engineering.
During our discussion, any opinions he expressed were his alone. He does not represent his employers.
As a researcher, he recently started a project called Unique Safety Features and Licensing Requirements of Small Modular Reactors | Frontiers Research Topic (frontiersin.org). A self-described “traditional utility guy” he considers any reactor that generates considerably less than 4,000 MWth to be a smaller reactors.
During our pre-show correspondence, Marcus shared the following commentary explaining his interest in researching safety and licensing of smaller reactors and reasons why they address particular challenges associated with conventional extra-large reactors.
I am a traditional utility guy – which means that every reactor which generates noticeably less than 4000MWth is a “small” reactor. Especially in the US there is a distinction between small modular reactors, micro reactors and advanced reactors. From my perspective they are all “small”. In part this adjective is also justified because most of these designs are expected to be mass produced or consist of prefabricated modules and hence cannot be of the same size as a traditional LWR.
The reason why I initiated the ‘special research’ topic: the issue of energy security and climate change are two important factors which currently favor nuclear: it is a compact source of energy (you can easily build up strategic fuel reserves) and it has a small CO2 footprint. So, why are we waiting? Why are there still doubts that nuclear power can help solve these issues? It is not the sole solution, it is not a silver bullet, but it can be part of the solution. From a conservative utility perspective traditional LWRs would be the most reliable bet. For some reasons big, complicated infrastructure projects are out-of-favor today. SMRs have many new design details and confidence must be built that they are safer, more reliable and easier to license.
Therefore the “research topic” intends to put current research into perspective: we have great experience from many years of traditional LWR operation, we have learned from earlier, advanced reactor concepts and today we have many modern engineering tools. This should be a good basis to fulfill the promises of the next generation of reactors. In my opinion it is important to understand the history of reactor development, to demonstrate that compared to earlier designs and methods we justifiably can be more confident to bring the technology to its next level. And SMRs are not just scaled down versions of bigger plants. They are small in order to make the core damage frequency much smaller than that of their bigger brothers.
As a scientist I am a fan of radical honesty and transparency: reactors are just machines which are an optimized solution for a specific problem. Certainly, there will be failures and setbacks. If a machine encounters conditions for which it was not optimized, it likely will fail. Compared to the risks our fathers took more than 50 years ago, we are now in a much better position. This is why I am optimistic that a new generation of reactors and higher safety standards are possible. Nevertheless, these are complex technological products and they are full of surprises and also “small” reactors will not fully fulfill expectations. No reason to worry, this is the way evolution works: engineering is a sequence of problems, solutions and more problems. Therefore, the research topic invites regulators and sceptics for “perspectives” to explain their concerns.
Small reactors are sometimes criticized for lacking economies of scale and scope. Yes, this may be true from a fuel efficiency point of view. But these reactors solve another problem: the inability of many organizations to think long-term, being burdened with short-term financial performance. Small reactors are one answer to this environment. But history will not stop here. It may also turn out that small reactors are a necessary, first step to rebuild confidence for projects with larger reactors later.
Nuclear fission is a compact source of energy and therefore also a compact source of spent fuel. I do not like the term “waste” because the question is what you mean with “waste”? The fission products, the actinides, the structural materials? Is it a lack of imagination to not find other solutions than digging holes for them?
To date the question of how to deal with spent fuel has not satisfactorily been answered. Often for political reasons development of new technological solutions has been abandoned. Therefore, it is useless to criticize the current back-end solutions. Better technologies are urgently needed here, too. Nevertheless, the big advantage of nuclear spent fuel is that it is compact and easily controllable. Its volume is small, and it does not spread all over the atmosphere like CO2 emissions.
I do not worry about spent nuclear fuel and long-term storage: it looks like a problem now, but future generations which much better tools and knowledge will “solve” it. No reason to be concerned. Also, we do not use nuclear energy for fun but to solve a problem now: provide energy security and avoid CO2 emission. Climate change is an existential threat, spent nuclear fuel is not.
We are incredibly lucky that nuclear fission works for large scale energy generation – this is not well appreciated, and the technology’s disadvantages are over-emphasized. Many energy-generation processes work in the laboratory, but current tools and know-how are not yet sufficient to employ them for energy generation: fusion works in the laboratory, but for power-plant scale the process has been energy negative for a long time. Storing energy in the form of matter / antimatter pairs also works in the laboratory but is still far too inefficient to use for practical purposes. That nuclear fission has practical utility is due to a fortunate combination of three natural constants:
1. The size of the neutron fission cross section. If the neutron fission cross section would be as small as the photo-fission cross section, then we probably would not have any reactors, or they would look very differently
2. The number of secondary neutrons per fission event: if there would be less than 1 secondary neutron, no chain reaction would be possible, no neutron amplification would be possible, it would be very expensive to generate enough external fission neutrons.
3. Fraction of delayed neutrons: if only prompt neutrons existed, then reactor control would be very difficult.
Luckily all three above mentioned parameters are of the right size to make commercial reactors possible. With fusion or matter/antimatter we might not be so lucky. So, we need to be grateful that energy generation by nuclear fission is working! This is a reason for celebration.
By now you will have noticed that I had my 20 years of professional nuclear career in Germany and it shows how a reliable technology still can fail even though it created no harm. This is hard for me to accept because all the engineering was done right. It is a caveat for those enthusiasts that even the perfect, next generation reactor may not be deployable in some countries or regions. It also shows the skewed risk perception many people have: during Covid-19 about 100000 Germans because of the virus. During 50 years of nuclear power plant operation nobody in the public was harmed. Nevertheless, many Germans are satisfied with “living with the virus” while still being skeptical or afraid of nuclear. This is logic turned upside down.
The German experience also shows the impact of what I call the “dictatorship of a stubborn minority”. Likely, most Germans do not really care about nuclear. They are neutral. But there has been a hardcore group of people who stubbornly refuses to discuss nuclear power rationally. Some of those people are now in government. The same government who urges people to deal “rationally” with the Covid-19 pandemic. These are all contradictions which are hard to swallow for a scientist or engineer.
We talked mostly about Marcus’s thoughts about smaller reactors as expressed above but strayed into areas where he could offer a unique perspective on nuclear history and future.
I hope you enjoy the show. Please share your thoughts and reactions in the comment thread.
Marcus shared a couple of other works of nuclear energy art.
Patrick McClure and David Poston successfully developed, obtained funding, constructed and operated a new atomic fission power source that produced useful quantities of electricity during the period from 2014-2018. That puts them into a rarified, perhaps unique position. Few US-based technologists have been through that process in the past 40 years. Aside: Without some way […]
The 121 Mining Investment event held in Las Vegas on March 30 and 31 included a panel discussion with leaders from three uranium mining companies, each of which has an asset base of potentially lucrative mining prospects mostly located in North America. The fourth member of the panel was a managing partner at Nucleation Capital, […]
Nuclear energy has been making more frequent appearances at Earth Day events around the country. Groups like Generation Atomic, Mothers for Nuclear, Climate Coalition and Young Generation in Nuclear have been actively attending Earth Day events for a number of years. On Saturday, April 23, Nucleation Capital participated in the Earth Day celebration hosted by […]
Sizewell C is a project to build a 3,200 MWe power station consisting of two EPR units on the site that currently hosts a single large pressurized water reactor (Sizewell B). With the exception of site-specific foundations and structures, the new power station will be a copy of the station currently under construction at Hinkley […]
By Brian Gitt Brian’s an energy entrepreneur, investor, and writer. He’s been pursuing truth in energy for over two decades. First, as executive director of a green building trade association. Then as CEO of an energy consulting firm (acquired by Frontier Energy) specializing in the commercialization of technology in buildings, vehicles, and power plants. And […]
The Assay is a media project of the 121 Group, based in Hong Kong, that serves investors, fund managers and analysts who are involved with and/or investing in a wide range of mining ventures. As part of their efforts to bring a greater understanding of the complex markets that control the prospects of mining ventures, […]
Deep Isolation is a young company developing solutions for “the nuclear waste issue.” They have built their solution option based on highly developed technologies used in the oil and gas drilling sector. Several decades ago, after discussing and evaluating several options, the world’s scientific and political communities came to a general consensus around the notion […]
The EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities (EU Taxonomy) became law in July 2020, but the law left several decisions to be finalized in “delegated acts.” These decisions required additional technical evaluation. The treatment of nuclear energy was one of those technical issues. On December 31, 2021, a draft delegated act was published that recognized that […]
On January 12, 2022, the New York Power Authority posted a poll on its Twitter feed. It asked people to vote for the clean energy technology they would like more of in 2022. The poll listed electric vehicles, green hydrogen, solar and geothermal. Within a couple of hours, more than sixty users had responded to […]
Mikal Boe has spent 30 years in and around the commercial shipping industry. Several years ago, he began wondering how his industry was going to meet the increasingly stringent rules for air pollution and CO2 production that were being implemented by governing regulators, especially the International Maritime Organization (IMO). His extensive technical research led him […]