• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

ANS Winter 2016

Will China convert existing coal plants to nuclear using HTR-PM reactors?

November 21, 2016 By Rod Adams

It would be a huge benefit to the earth’s atmosphere if China, India, Brazil and the US could reduce direct coal burning while still making use of much of the capital that they have invested in building coal fired power plants. It would make an even larger difference in reducing air pollution in the areas downwind of the coal stations.

Converting coal-burning supercritical steam plants to nuclear power plants by replacing the furnaces and boilers with high temperature gas cooled reactors might become a routine power plant improvement in the relatively near future. The High Temperature Reactor – Power Module (HTR-PM) project is aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of this evolutionary concept.

At the recent High Temperature Reactor 2016 (HTR2016), held in Las Vegas, NV, Prof. Zhang Zuoyi, Director of China’s Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technologies (INET), briefed his colleagues in the international community of high temperature gas reactor enthusiasts on the current status of the HTR-PM. That project is one of the more intriguing clean air projects underway in the world today.

The end of Zhang Zuoyi’s brief resulted in a sustained round of clapping; there were even a few hoots from the attending scientists and engineers that would have been more expected at a football match. (Most attendees at this talk were not from the US, the word “match” is intentional.)

Some of the audience members were able to trace their involvement and excitement about HTRs back more than 40 years to hands-on experience in the construction and operation of the Peach Bottom 1 nuclear plant, a project that was planned, constructed and operated in the US during the period from 1958 – 1978. The attendees were nearly unanimous in their appreciation of the fact that someone, somewhere was building commercial plants using the technology they had been working on for so long.

Target Market

China’s HTR-PM project is squarely aimed at being a cost-effective solution that will virtually eliminate air pollution and CO2 production from selected units of China’s large installed base of modern 600 MWe supercritical coal plants.

This is not a “pie-in-the-sky” long range plan to eventually replace those built facilities and leave idle capital rotting away. Instead, it is a deployment program with the first of a kind commercial demonstration approaching construction completion and commercial operation by mid to late 2018. Major parts of the machinery will be able to be merged into the existing infrastructure.

Schedule

The commercial operation date is six to nine months later than scheduled when construction began, but Prof. Zhang Zuoyi proudly explained that the HTR-PM first-of-a-kind delays were much shorter than the 3-4 year delays that have plagued the EPR and AP1000 construction projects in their country.

The current critical path item is the completion of the steam generators — one for each of the two reactors. The shells and internals have been completed, but the final stages of attaching the piping to the thick-walled, large diameter pressure vessels will delay site delivery until sometime close to the middle of 2017.

Development Challenges

Zhang Zuoyi gave an excellent overview of the design and testing challenges that the project has faced and overcome. Nearly every item on the list of critical steps for design and testing had been completed.

For example, the development effort included building four different prototypes for the helium circulators. The primary design included magnetic bearings, but the developers knew that they were well past the size limits of proven uses of magnetic bearings so they had a couple of fall back designs. They did not want the project to fail because of failure to deliver on a single component.

In another example, the reactor pressure vessels weigh in at 600 tons, making the act of installing them a very heavy lift that exceeded previously existing capabilities.

The learning that has been gained during the challenging task of construction and component manufacturing and the learning that will be gained during the operation of a plant that uses two nuclear heated boilers to power a single steam turbine will form a solid foundation for the next step.

As operational experience is gained with the first unit, the developers will be building more boilers and installing them in configurations of six to twelve boilers providing steam to a single steam turbine.

One of the items that was learned during construction of the lead unit was that the plant footprint could be reduced by about 50% by arranging the boilers in circles with three boilers in each circle instead of lining them all up side by side.

Increasing Value Of Existing Infrastructure

In some cases, these nuclear boiler installations will be part of entirely new power stations. The more intriguing aspect of the concept, however, is the fact that the high temperature atomic boilers produce steam conditions that are identical to the design conditions for a large series of modern, 600 MWe steam plants that currently use coal as the heat source.

During the question and answer period, Prof. Zhang Zuoyi responded to my questions by confirming that some of the pebble-bed atomic boilers will be installed as replacement heat sources for existing steam plants. Those installations will be able to take advantage of the switchyards, the installed transmission networks, the cooling water systems, the sites and in some cases the entire steam plant including the steam turbine.

The priority for replacing coal boilers with nuclear boilers will be at power plants in areas with major pollution problems. Those plants are often located very close to population centers; that reality is one of the reasons that China has invested in developing reactors that can be tested and proven to be safe.

The HTR-PM modules can withstand complete loss of pressurization and helium flow without a forced shutdown and still not release enough radioactive materials to exceed the very conservative dose limits in place today.

Cost And Value

The overall cost of this first of a kind nuclear plant will be in the neighborhood of $5000.00/kw of capacity. That number is based on signed and mostly executed contracts, not early estimates. It is about twice the initially expected cost. According to Zhang Zuoyi, 35% of the increased cost could be attributed to higher material and component costs that initially budgeted, 31% of the increase was due to increases in labor costs — which Zhang Zuoyi noted were rising rapidly in China — and the remainder due to the increased costs associated with the project delays.

Zhang Zuoyi described the techniques that will be applied to lower the costs; he expects them to soon approach the $2,000 to $2,500 / kw capacity range.

The value proposition of these clean replacement boilers, however, will be more than just economical electricity. The real payoff will be the ability to enjoy the fruits of economic development without as much difficulty in merely taking a breath.

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, ANS Winter 2016, Climate change, Gas Cooled Reactors, Graphite Moderated Reactors, New Nuclear, Pebble Bed Reactors

Nukes in Las Vegas. ANS Winter Meeting 2016 part 1

November 7, 2016 By Rod Adams 39 Comments

ANS Winter Meeting 2016 Mentor Session
ANS Winter Meeting 2016 Mentor Session

The ANS winter meeting for 2016 will officially begin today, but the weekend has been full of committee meetings, hallway gatherings and organized sessions for the Young Members Group and the High Temperature Reactor (HTR) embedded topical discussion.

I learned long ago that I needed to arrive at ANS meetings well before the President’s Reception on Sunday evening, but I now regret that I made my arrangements to be here Sunday morning instead of Saturday morning. I apparently missed some useful sessions on HTRs, a couple of spirited discussions among the young members, a gathering of the Clean Power Coalition and a highly praised concert featuring a cover band who played the standards from the 1970s and 1980s.

Margaret Harding was tweeting highlights of the HTR sessions @M2harding.

As usual, the area near the registration desk turned out to be a target-rich environment for running into old friends and long time acquaintances. I’m not going to tie commentary to names, but I’d like to share some impressions from my highly unscientific and biased sample.

There was a relatively balanced mix of optimism, pessimism and equanimity about the future of the nuclear enterprise in the US.

Researchers were, as is often the case, concerned about the lack of sufficient grants and other forms of funding for their interest areas. They shared stories of colleagues who had decided to find other interest areas. Those at the meeting are hanging on, hoping that money will eventually follow at least some of the nicely worded pro-nuclear legislation introduced — but not passed — during the Congress that has almost finished its work.

People at advanced reactor and SMR start-up enterprises described intense levels of fascinating work, some frustration with paperwork burdens, and a bit of concern about long-term funding and market issues.

I did not find anyone who is working on the AP1000 construction projects. That’s no surprise; they are likely to be working long hours with few, if any days off from activities that are on the critical path for completing those projects.

There is a strong student and young members contingent. One of the best hours of my day was participating in the Mentor session and talking with people who are technically trained, but very interested in communications, policy and advocacy.

I attended part of the decommissioning committee meeting. As I departed, I tossed out the question for them to ponder about idling or mothballing nuclear facilities as an option to destroying their future utility. I think one of the members of the group was involved in the study that resulted in a finding that Ft Calhoun could never be economically competitive; I’d really like to engage in a more detailed discussion about the assumptions and methods used.

The communications committee meeting was well attended and covered some interesting future programs. One of the more intriguing discussions involved a gentleman who has wanted to accomplish something in encouraging better writing about nuclear science for the general public but he had never had the resources he thought he needed. He’s come into some money that he did not expect or depend on and is now going to make it useful. We need more people like this!

I had a couple of depressing discussions with people who were concerned about the future of nuclear energy in the US. They pointed to the plant closings, the project cancellations and the lack of substantive action from the federal government to help the public recognize the value of clean nuclear energy. They described a noticeable exodus of talent to other industries; people who qualify to be nukes are eagerly sought by many employers in various fields of endeavor.

I also had an uplifting conversation with a young friend who has impressive international experience and technical expertise who has decided to focus more on the business and policy side of the nuclear enterprise. She’s started a position with one of the up and comers where she will be building business relationships and working public and policy issues associated with her new employer’s product. I’ve always said that nuclear needs more talented marketers.

This year, I didn’t attend the President’s Reception so I have no reports to share about that event. That might have been an incorrect decision, but my frugal upbringing couldn’t allow me to cough up $75 for a 2-hour cocktail hour. (Regular and student attendees don’t pay extra; the reception comes with their normal fees.)

On that note, I wonder when Vegas hotels changed their habit of moderately priced food and beverages as a way of encouraging expenditures on tables and slot machines. My in room Kuerig coffee maker has a $13/serving price tag while burgers at one of the “bar and grill” restaurants in the casino area were listed at $20+ on the menu. Food court for me.

Aside: Now might be a good time to remind readers that Atomic Insights operates on a value for value model. It’s ad free and there are no paywalls, but readers who like what we do can help retain those features by making non-tax deductible payments for value received. There’s a button on the front page. If you prefer to send checks, use the contact form to request payment and address information. End Aside.

I’m looking forward to today’s plenary sessions for both the general meeting and the HTR2016 embedded topical. I also have the President’s Special Session Identifying The Nuclear Grand Challenges on my list of “must attend” sessions.

I’m also looking forward to participating in a panel discussion on Tuesday titled U.S. Reactor Fleet Viability in a Challenging Financial Market.

Here is the blurb about the session taken from the meeting agenda.

Sponsored by: OPD Cosponsored by: YMG
Session Organizers: Timothy M. Crook (Texas A&M), Catherine Perego (Westinghouse)
Cochairs: Timothy M. Crook (Texas A&M), Hitesh Bindra (KSU)
Location: Octavius 6 Time: 1:00-4:00 pm
The U.S. nuclear fleet is faced with both external and internal nancial pressures. As the industry internally attempts to reduce costs through Delivering the Nuclear Promise, operating plants are being forced into early shutdown because of unfavorable market conditions driven by external factors. This panel will discuss the financial impact of corporate and governmental policies, socio-technological changes, decommissioning, and operational challenges on the nuclear energy industry. Representatives from nuclear engineering academia, nuclear energy industry, and environmental protection organizations will participate in this panel to envision the current and future roles of education, outreach, policy, and advocacy in addressing these challenges.
Panelists:
Michael Shellenberger (Environmental Progress) or Eric Meyer (Environmental Progress)
Kathryn McCarthy (INL)
Paul Wilson (Univ of Wisconsin)
David Fein (Exelon Corp.)
Rod Adams (Atomic Insights)

Filed Under: mothball, ANS Winter 2016

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Join Rod’s pronuclear network

Join Rod's pronuclear network by completing this form. Let us know what your specific interests are.

Recent Comments

  • David on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • Rod Adams on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • David on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • Rod Adams on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • paul wick on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked

Nuclear energy growth prospects and secure uranium supplies

Nucleation Capital’s Earth Day in Atherton

Atomic Show #296 – Julia Pyke, Director of Finance Sizewell C

Solar’s dirty secrets: How solar power hurts people and the planet

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy