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

Atomic Insights

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

ARTSIII Feb 2016

U-Battery – Micronuclear power with intriguing business model

February 14, 2016 By Rod Adams 19 Comments

U-Battery was one of the more intriguing presenters at the Advanced Reactor Technical Summit (ARTSIII) held at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory last week. Even though this was a technical summit, the segments of the presentation that captured my attention were the business model and the funding source. However, certain technical choices are vital to support the business model and to attract the funding source.

U-Battery is developing a micro nuclear reactor — a category of nuclear power reactors that produce less than 10 MWe — that uses a helium cooled high temperature reactor with hexagonal prismatic fuel elements similar to the ones used for the Ft. St. Vrain reactor. Like the FSV reactor, the key safety feature is a Triso coated fuel particle that has been proven to be able to retain fission products during indefinite periods of time at temperatures as high as 1800 ℃.

Though the below image is from an INL brief for a proposed system, the U-Battery fuel choice is virtually identical.

HTTR fuel 560

The reactor coolant system will have 40 bar helium circulated between through the reactor and a heat exchanger using a blower, but not one with water cooled bearings like the ones that helped to consign the FSV plant to an early demise. The secondary system is filled with nitrogen and runs through a fairly conventional turbomachine in a closed cycle cooled by low profile air-cooled cooling towers. The lack of water is both a system reliability consideration and a site flexibility feature.

The technical people who conceived the system initially considered using a thorium-based fuel cycle — which would still be an option for later iterations — but they realized it might make more sense to use uranium. That blinding flash of the obvious (BFO) happened when they learned that URENCO — which tells the world that they “… are committed to leading the way in uranium enrichment services for the civil nuclear industry” — was interested in their technology.

Though the final decisions have not been made, URENCO is backing current efforts and may decide to fund the detailed system development and licensing, participate in a partnership to build the first units and purchase them to supply power to its power-hungry facility at Capenhurst. This is a perfect nuclear version of the “eat your own dogfood” mantra well known in the tech industry.

Not only will Urenco obtain reliable, affordable, clean electricity that is a necessary ingredient to its continued success in its core business, but it will be demonstrating a technology that could result in a major demand increase for their core product offering of uranium enrichment service. With the right partnerships, Urenco could also expand into fuel fabrication. Since Urenco has energy-intensive manufacturing facilities in several countries, including the southwestern U.S., there is a terrific opportunity to achieve Nth-of-a-kind economies by meeting its own needs.

According to the presentation provided, URENCO’s current U.K.-based centrifuge plants require approximately 27 MWe. There are near-term plans to add another industrial operation (not a centrifuge) that will use another 3-4 MWe.

That means that the site could consume the output of approximately eight units of the 10 MWth variant. The building height is about 25-30 feet, the reactor, intermediate heat exchanger and turbine are all below grade.

Aside: If asked, I would counsel U-Battery to use a horizontally mounted turbine and generator arrangement vice the vertical one that their graphic illustrates. There is no value in trying to do something rare and difficult with the turbomachinery. End Aside.

Apparently, URENCO’s current site license for Capenhurst will need little, if any, modification to enable the company to build the U-Battery installations on its site. It is simply another facility upgrade as envisioned with the initial license application.

The presentation at the ARTSIII included a site map with several highlighted locations that have already been initially evaluated as suitable for the machines.

Assuming involved corporate boards decide to move forward, this project could leapfrog all other known advanced reactor developments. The partnership as described can tick almost every box needed to begin construction; they have funds, they have a design team, they have credibility, they have a site, and they have chosen a technology that has a sound basis of testing and demonstration.

The US DOE’s development of high temperature fuel manufacturing processes is complete; the fuel qualification testing program will finish crossing all of the t’s and dotting all of the i’s by 2023 with the current funding profile, but that might be dramatically accelerated with sufficient motivation and funding in the UK.

The U-Battery presenters mentioned my former employer, BWX Technologies as a potential fuel supplier. That is the company that has done the manufacturing process development and provided the Triso particles for the highly successful NGNP testing program.

Aside: If you visit the link in the above paragraph and look closely, you will note that the brochure is copyrighted in 2008. The company’s involvement in Triso fuel manufacturing is the real reason I decided to accept their employment offer after I retired from the Navy. Unfortunately, the high prices of natural gas in the 2004-2008 time frame had led the company to believe they needed to start their reentry into commercial nuclear energy with a reactor system using light water. They thought that would enable a faster market entry. End Aside.

Now that I have published this, I will start evaluating investment opportunities that can take advantage of the possibilities if they come to fruition. I’m a patient investor with a long time horizon and I do not provide specific advice related to securities purchases.

There is a good reason I keep going to conferences, workshops and summits related to nuclear energy development. Despite a pretty refined radar and a developed network of sources, I had somehow overlooked U-Battery. The first time I had heard of the company was when I read through the agenda for the ARTSIII event. If I had not been busy in a family way when I saw that agenda, I probably would have done a bit of searching, but I decided to wait to hear what the company reps had to say. The maturity of the project took me by surprise.

There are an increasing number of reasons to get excited about advanced nuclear technologies, even if the basic ideas were proposed and developed decades ago. Since deployment never occurred, the old can look new, improved and exciting to the energy market.

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, ARTSIII Feb 2016, Business of atomic energy, Gas Cooled Reactors, Graphite Moderated Reactors, New Nuclear, Nuclear Batteries, Reactors, Smaller reactors

Jump on the Advanced Reactor development and deployment bandwagon

February 13, 2016 By Rod Adams 27 Comments

On February 10-11, 2016, the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council (USNIC) sponsored the 3rd annual Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. Oak Ridge National Laboratory provided the venue for the event.

Though he wasn’t the first speaker, I’d like to begin my reports from the event with Jeffery Merrifield’s stage setting talk. Merrifield is a man with a long resume in nuclear energy that includes an Atomic Show interview for show #167. He was a two-term commissioner on the NRC, serving from 1998-2007. He is the chairman of the USNIC Advanced Reactor Task Force.

This speech shares Merrifield’s personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of his current employer, the Pillsbury Law Firm. He provided permission to publish his talk, both as written and in a recorded audio file as delivered, with associated Q&A.


Remarks of Jeffrey S. Merrifield Third Annual Advanced Reactor Summit February 10, 2016

I would like to join David Blee in welcoming you to the Nuclear Infrastructure Council?s 3rd Annual Advanced Reactor Summit. As the Chair of the NIC Advanced Reactor Task Force, it is my pleasure to provide the kickoff industry remarks on Advanced Reactors.

With the exception of President Dwight David Eisenhower’?s Atoms for Peace speech in 1953, ?Hallmark Moments? in the nuclear industry tend too often to focus on the darker moments in the history of nuclear power. Like the proverbial Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh, the hyper-focus on TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima and the unfortunate, but understandable concern about the shutdown of units like Vermont Yankee, the nuclear industry?s own rhetoric and self-doubt contribute to public questioning about this technology and cast this industry in negative way. Unfortunately, this attitude tends to obscure what is truly an exemplary hallmark of achievement.

I think it is quite appropriate that we have our conference here at Oak Ridge, which is one of the world?s premier facilities in developing Advanced Reactor technologies. To put it in its simplest form, scientists from around the world, spurred by the events of World War II, worked at this and it sister facilities to take mere radioactive dirt and harness it to create vast amounts of energy. Through the subsequent development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy in the 1950?s at Oak Ridge and its sister facilities, the American people today benefit from clean, safe nuclear power that provides 70% of the U.S. carbon free generation and 35% of the world?s carbon free power. This is an achievement worthy of boastful pride.

Today, the vast majority of individuals in the United States support nuclear power and they are increasingly aware of its significance in fighting global climate change. While many anti-nuclear activists are slowly converting to a begrudging acceptance of nuclear power, or are slowly dying off, there is a growing and enthusiastic group of individuals under the age of 40 who embrace technology, who are not stuck in the past, and who are excited about the promise of Advanced Nuclear Reactors.

Two Thousand Sixteen will be noted for a number of very positive events in the renewal of nuclear power development in the United States.

  • ? First, later this year, in this very state, Watts Bar II will begin adding power to our nation?s electric grid becoming the first nuclear power plant to do so since its sister unit, Watts Bar I, began operations in 1996.
  • ? Second, on Friday, January 15, 2016, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced the selection of two companies, X-energy and Southern Company with TerraPower, to further develop Advanced Nuclear Reactor designs. These awards, with a multi- year cost share of up to $80 million for both companies, is intended to support work to address key technical challenges in the design, construction, and operation of next generation nuclear reactors. This followed on the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (?GAIN?) program, which the Obama Administration announced in late 2015 to spur further innovation and development of Advanced Reactors.
  • ? Third, on January 12, 2016, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, by voice, vote passed H.R.4084 ? the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act. This legislation which was introduced by Chairman Randy Webber (R-TX) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) would promote nuclear research infrastructure and enable the private sector to partner with the National Labs to develop new innovative reactor technologies as well as test and demonstrate novel reactor concepts. A little over two weeks later, on January 28, 2016, the United States Senate, by an overwhelming vote of 87-4, passed companion legislation, S. 2461, which was introduced by Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island). Having worked in the U.S. Senate for 10 years, I have to say it has been decades since a pro-nuclear measure passed with this level of support.
  • ? These are, indeed, very positive developments for nuclear power.

In mathematics, the word inflection point is defined as that point of a curve at which a change in the direction of curvature occurs ? or in common lexicon it is considered a turning point.

While some in the U.S. nuclear industry have focused on the recent shutdown of operating reactors, I believe that the recent events in the Advanced Reactor community represent an inflection point in the development of nuclear power in the United States. Recently, I had a chance to represent NIC at a Third Way conference on nuclear reactors. For those of you not familiar with Third Way, it is a Democratic Leaning think tank which seeks common ground on issues such as energy and the economy. I was struck by the broad based and bi-partisan support at the conference for Advanced Reactor technologies and the enthusiasm, among both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress for the hope and promise that this technology represents.

I commend both President Obama and the leadership of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate for their support of Advanced Reactors. However, hope and promise are not enough. While these are solid first steps, they support a beginning, not an end.

As I look out at this sell out conference ? which likely could have sold twice as many tickets ? I am struck by the sheer number of technology developers that are represented in this room. Unlike the circumstances of a dozen years ago where a buyer of nuclear technologies in the United States had three choices ? GE, Westinghouse or AREVA ? the Advanced Reactor community represents a broad range of sizes, shapes and designs. From the more traditional reactor vendors to the college- based startups, Advanced Reactors vendors represent a far different and larger cohort than their predecessors.

To fully harness the technology, the capabilities and the enthusiasm for this technology, we need to go big and we need to be bold.

The recent funding announcements were a wonderful commitment and they were the best that the Obama Administration could do within the currently authorized programs. However, if we believe that global climate change is real, if we truly want to make a difference in developing these reactor technologies, and if we want to electrify the world, we must put significantly more money on the table — and I am talking billions, with a B.

Just so you understand what I am talking about, according to the Energy Information Agency, if you added up the amount that the federal government spends on renewable and biomass programs in 2015 – including direct expenditures, tax expenditures and R&D, the amount would total $15 billion dollars. The comparative amount for nuclear is $1.66 billion. That means that nuclear receives just 11% of what is dedicated toward renewables, despite the fact that nuclear is the only way we will achieve meaningful carbon reduction targets. As a country, we must get our priorities straight and provide the nuclear research, development and deployment monies needed to help these technologies succeed.

We must be able to move beyond a program where one or two ?winning? companies can move forward with the full support of DOE. To fully embrace the vision that dates back to President Eisenhower, we must create a truly promotional focus within DOE that could support over a dozen reactor designs. Additionally, the President and Congress need to come together to create a robust research and demonstration program that not only provides the fast spectrum test reactor capabilities needed for fuel and component research, but comes with sufficient funding to allow their robust use and development.

Given the time I spent as a Commissioner at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (?NRC?), I am well aware of the dedicated and talented people who staff this agency and the commitment that each and every one of them has to their independence and safety focus. That said, I think it is vital that Congress turns sufficient attention to the Agency as it prepares to review Advanced Reactor designs. For its part, Congress needs to understand that the current fee based framework creates a significant hindrance to early development and deployment of Advanced Reactors. Congress needs to provide the NRC with sufficient sources of funding ? off the fee base ? to develop a risk informed framework for these reactor designs.

Likewise, the Commission needs to recognize that the Advanced Reactor community needs a review process that is risk informed, timely and embraces the significantly smaller source term represented by most of the Advanced Reactor designs. I believe that there are committed individuals at the NRC and within the Commission who understand that changes need to be made and are working hard to identify potential solutions. In my view, the NRC needs to develop a review program that will allow these reactor designs to be approved in less than half the time as currently required for large light water reactors as they represent commensurately smaller risk to public health and safety. While the Agency cannot and should not promote Advanced Reactor designs, it can enable them by creating a regulatory framework that recognizes their comparatively safe design and provides a commensurate licensing footprint.

Finally, I would like to make some remarks focused on the Advanced Reactor Developers represented in the audience. To paraphrase an aphorism made famous by President John F. Kennedy, ?A rising tide lifts all boats?. The greatest danger that this group faces, is if Advanced Reactor developers attempt to promote their technology by trying to undercut or tear down others within this community. To do so will only help to undermine the effort as a whole and will diminish the enthusiasm and support for these technologies. This is not to say that design concerns should be ignored, but this group needs to identify opportunities to work collaboratively to achieve advancements that can benefit multiple technologies and allow a myriad of these technologies to develop and thrive.

In Washington, it has long been proved that people like a winner. The sheer number of groups that have jumped on the Advanced Reactor bandwagon, both inside and outside the beltway, is indicative of the type of enthusiasm these technologies have attracted. With all these voices, the Advanced Reactor community and the companies that wish to purchase these technologies need to be careful that they are not pushed and pulled in separate directions. Recently, Steve Kuczynski, the President of Southern Nuclear, stated his view that the Advanced Reactor Community would benefit from clear and unified voice. Steve and I agree As he chairs the NEI Advanced Reactor Working Group and I chair the NIC Advanced Reactor Task Force, we are working together to find a common approach to help this group move forward.

With that comment, I will leave you with a final thought. As a nuclear community, we cannot and should not allow ourselves to be measured solely by the achievements and events of the past. We need to look to the future. The developers and supporters of Advanced Nuclear Reactor technologies recognize that these designs represent truly transformational opportunities to provide energy and heat for people around the world. The carbon free, clean generation provided by these designs has the ability to improve the standard of living for billions of people around the world. It is within the power and financial capability of our great nation to advance the cause of these beneficial nuclear technologies and we can and should come together to make it happen.

Thank you and have a great conference.


Note: The attached audio file was recorded with a portable recorder for note taking purposes, so the sound quality is not as good as if it was pulled directly from the conference sound equipment. It’s still worth your time for a listen.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/AtomicShowFiles/atomicextra_20160210_012.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 28:45 — 26.3MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | RSS

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, ARTSIII Feb 2016, Atomic politics

Primary Sidebar

Search Atomic Insights

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Five Myths about the Lone Star Blackout

Atomic Show #291 – Kalev Kallemets, Fermi Energia

Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell

South Texas Project Unit 1 tripped at 0537 on Feb 15, 2021

Atomic Show #290 – Myrto Tripathi, Voices of Nuclear

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

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2021 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy