• 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

Water Cooled Reactors

Bechtel And BWXT Quietly Terminate mPower Reactor Project

March 19, 2017 By Rod Adams

Generation mPower Press conference
Generation mPower Announcement Press Conference. July 14, 2010

Generation mPower, one of the early leaders in the development of small modular reactors (SMR), has decided to fully terminate its partnership and put the design material that was developed onto a corporate shelf. Though this isn’t specifically good nuclear news, it is an indication that nuclear energy development has many hurdles that it shares with all other fields of technology development.

It’s challenging, expensive, usually takes longer than expected, requires focus, subject to changing situations and even when substantial resources are available and invested, failure – or giving up – is always both a risk and an option.

What Was Generation mPower?

Generation mPower was a partnership between BWXT – which was a part of The Babcock & Wilcox Company when the partnership was first formed – and Bechtel. BWXT owned 90% of the equity in the partnership and was responsible for designing the nuclear steam supply system, which is the nuclear fuel core, the piping and heat exchangers and the operating machinery inside the containment building.

Bechtel owned 10% and was responsible for designing the structural parts of the containment building, all of the buildings and internal systems for the steam system, and the site support systems. Bechtel also provided its project management expertise, including occupying what is often the most powerful position in any partnership, that of the comptroller with the final say in any major expenditure decision.

The companies worked closely together to design the site layout with an eye towards meeting stringent security and aircraft impact requirements in a cost and manpower effective way.

For a complete power plant, more than 80% of the overnight cost fell within Bechtel’s scope.

What Was The mPowerTM Reactor?

One of the first decisions made in the mPower development process was that the product would be a refined pressurized light water reactor with a steam plant to produce electricity. The system would take advantage of more than 50 years worth of development and gradual improvements in understanding of all aspects of that type of reactor. Part of the decision process was driven by what was seen as a near-term market demand for better, smaller, more flexible nuclear power generators.

The mPower was announced to the world in June 2009, but the initial decision to pursue the project came before the financial crisis that happened in the summer of 2008. At that time, natural gas had been on an eight-year run of ratcheting price increases. In 2000, electric power generators could buy gas for about $2.00 per MMBTU. By June 2008, electricity generating companies were paying as much as $12 per MMBTU for routine deliveries with substantially higher price spikes during periods of especially high demand.

Rather than pursue a technology that was unfamiliar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and accept the challenges of teaching the regulator how to ensure safety with a different paradigm, B&W chose to keep their design mostly within the known box with conventional fuels and materials that had already been qualified and understood. The expectation was that this choice would lead to more rapid completion of a marketable product with a design certification from the NRC.

After several major iterations during the 7 years of development, the basic mPower unit would have been a 195 MWe pressurized light water reactor. The nuclear steam supply system would have been completely housed inside a tall pressure vessel that minimized the opportunity for large piping failures. The reactor core would be in the lower section of the vessel, the control rod drive mechanisms would be above the core, the once-through steam generators would be above the the CRDMs with a water riser going up the center of the steam generators and finally the pressurizer would be the highest section of the vessel.

With the once through steam generators, mPower reactors would produce steam that was superheated by about 50 F.

There is a passing conceptual resemblance between the mPower reactor and the NuScale power module with one primary difference – mPower would have been a forced convection plant with 8 small canned motor reactor coolant pumps mounted with the motors outside the pressurizer section on what is essentially a very thick shelf. The pump cans would bolt to the top of the shelf and the motor shaft would extend into the section of the pressure vessel contained by the shelf so that the pumps could circulate water through the system.

The NuScale power module, as is well known, has no reactor coolant pumps and depends on natural circulation driven by density differences between cooler water, hotter water and steam at various temperatures.

The forced circulation system chosen for mPower, along with somewhat larger pressure vessel dimensions are what allowed designers to claim a power output capacity of 195 MWe versus the 50 MWe for each NuScale power module.

Generation mPower, while recognizing that numerous power station configurations would be possible, put most of its initial marketing and design efforts into a two-unit station capable of producing 380 MWe.

Reasons Product Couldn’t Find A Market

There’s a famous concept attributed to The Great One – Wayne Gretzky, one of the most prolific scorers in the history of the National Hockey League – that says that the secret to success isn’t in skating to where the puck is, but in skating to where it is going to be when you get there.

In energy technology development applying that advice can be a challenge. There are so many ways in which the puck’s travel can be altered while the engineers, lawyers, process developers and businessmen are doing their necessary tasks. From the time when the B&W board of directors authorized the beginning of the mPower project until its final termination decision, the puck – which in this case wass the market opportunity seen by the internal promoters of the mPower concept – was deflected in unpredicted ways by a number of factors, some internal and some completely beyond the control of anyone involved. Example deflectors included:

  • Financial crisis of 2008
  • Collapse in natural gas prices as a result in immediate drop in domestic demand as the ensuing recession deepened
  • Continuing reduction in natural gas prices as a result of the boom in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling enabled by very low cost capital
  • Management challenges associated with growing a major technology project as a fundamentally unequal partnership between two large, established companies, each with their own culture
  • The aggressive effort to market the Fukushima events as a nuclear catastrophe in order to suppress a growing interest in nuclear energy development
  • The entry of activist investors that purchased a large portion of B&W’s stock and forced a major reevaluation of the project and the overall corporate structure

The end result after spending about $400 million was that the product development was not completed to a point that was sufficiently interesting to investors or to the boards of directors for the primary partners in the endeavor. There was simply too much work left to do, too much money left to invest and an insufficient level of interest in the product to allow continued expenditures to clear corporate decision hurdles.

Complete Project Termination

On March 3, 2017 Bechtel notified BWXT that it was unable to secure sufficient funding to continue the Generation mPower program and was invoking the settlement scenario provisions of the framework agreement announced in March 2016 for terminating the program.

Bechtel’s communication marked the end of a one-year period during which Bechtel assumed the project lead from BWXT, the original developer of the mPower concept. During that period project partners shared the primary goal of securing additional investments that would allow the reactor development and certification process to be completed.

As a result of the termination notification, BWXT will pay Bechtel a $30 million settlement as Bechtel’s sole and exclusive remedy, as agreed by both companies in the framework agreement filed in 2016. (This amount has already been recognized in BWXT’s financial statements as of March 31, 2016.)

BWXT will bring its mPower technology development efforts to a close in the next few months, and Generation mPower LLC will terminate its mPower program.

BWXT and Bechtel have worked diligently over the past several years to attract additional investor interest in the mPower reactor project. Jud Simmons, Director of Communications for BWXT provided the following statement.

We are disappointed that additional interest has not materialized, but BWXT will move forward in other areas where our unique expertise matches our current and potential customers’ needs.

It’s also important to note that BWXT believes in its SMR technology and is proud of its development efforts to date. We will keep a complete archive of our work to date, and should conditions warrant in the future, BWXT will be in a position to evaluate any opportunities for design and manufacture using that technology, as guided by our senior leadership and Board of Directors.

It’s my understanding that one of the areas that BWXT will pursue rests on its long history as a skilled manufacturer of high-quality components. Much of its expertise and experience is directly applicable to small and advanced nuclear systems. BWXT might now be able to be a substantial participant in the supply chain for some of the other system vendors that are still developing their products.

When it was working on its own complete product as part of the Generation mPower partnership, it was unable to participate as a potential supplier to other vendors.

Disclosure I worked for B&W mPower as the Process and Procedure Development Lead from 2010-2013. This is an opinion piece based on experience and continued observation of the public information released about the partnership, both in the press and at industry events. I have not tapped any company sources other than my communication with the B&W communications organization.


Note: A version of the above was first published on Forbes.com with the same headline. It is republished here with permission.

Filed Under: Business of atomic energy, Small Nuclear Power Plants, Water Cooled Reactors

NRC accepted NuScale’s DCA. Will it complete its review on time? Estimated completion July 2020

March 16, 2017 By Rod Adams

Introduction to NuScale’s control room.

Yesterday, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission accepted NuScale’s 12,000 page design certification application (DCA). That action starts the safety determination process, which is scheduled to take 40 months.

Completed on December 31, 2016 and submitted to the NRC on January 12, 2017, NuScale’s certification application has been subjected to a 60 day checklist review designed to ensure that the document addresses all required aspects of the design with adequate technical information to support a safety determination.

First-try acceptance of the application is a tribute to the design and licensing team’s lengthy preparation, hard work and attention to detail. Several of the DCAs that have been submitted to the NRC in the past were rejected as being incomplete or lacking sufficient technical support when they were first submitted.

NuScale has been engaging the NRC in preapplication meetings for the past several years. So far, the company has purchased approximately 40,000 professional staff hours of review services from the regulators at an price of about $270 per hour. Preparation of the document, including the supporting test program required the services of a engineering and licensing team totaling about 800 participants, with a roughly equal split between company employees and contractors.

NuScale COO and CNO Dale Atkinson expressed his thoughts on the accomplishment of one more milestone in the marathon process of creating a new clean energy technology option.

We appreciate the NRC’s dedication to clarifying requirements for the submittal. That kind of interaction was essential to NuScale successfully being docketed for review.

There is still much to do and we firmly believe that not only will NuScale be the first SMR certified by the U.S. NRC, but that the size and simplicity of the NuScale design will change the way we think and talk about nuclear going forward.

John Hopkins, NuScale Power’s CEO expressed his pride in the progress made by his team and asserted the importance of the step for the nuclear industry.

This is a great next step for a new American nuclear technology and a step we see as affirming NuScale as a true leader in SMR technology development.

It’s worth noting that Mr. Hopkins is not only NuScale’s Chairman and CEO, but he is also a major U.S. business leader who is currently serving as the Chairman, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.

That position provides frequent opportunities to express enthusiasm for the economic and environmental improvement potential of a smaller, simpler, nuclear energy system that can be manufactured in a factory and set up on site with vastly improved schedule predictability.

There is a real need to upgrade American infrastructure to provide for clean and reliable electricity to spur growth in the U.S. There is a real need to boost American manufacturing, and create American jobs,” said Hopkins. “NuScale’s new nuclear energy technology can do all of that and begin to meet the urgent needs for power, for clean water and to support industrial growth around the world – and do it on a scale and at a cost that makes sense.

The lead NuScale power plant will be built on an already identified site inside the boundaries of the Idaho National Laboratory. It will be owned by the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS).

The power station, consisting of 12 identical 50 MWe NuScale power modules, will be operated by Energy Northwest, which has been operating the Columbia Nuclear Power station for the past several decades.

UAMPS plans to submit its combined license application (COL) by early 2018.

Disclosure: NuScale is a customer of Atomic Insights energy information services.

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, New Nuclear, Nuclear regulations, Small Nuclear Power Plants, Water Cooled Reactors

NuScale Getting Ready For Design Certification Submission

October 26, 2016 By Rod Adams 18 Comments

NuScale remains on track to submit a high quality design certification application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the end of 2016. That statement might surprise people who follow small modular reactor developments closely enough to be aware that the company received a status report earlier this week from the NRC that gave a grade […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Business of atomic energy, New Nuclear, Small Nuclear Power Plants, Water Cooled Reactors

Lightbridge metallic alloy fuel provides upgrade path for LWRs

April 13, 2016 By Rod Adams 53 Comments

Lightbridge, a company that was originally incorporated as Thorium Power, Inc., has achieved significant technology developments after making a strategic turn in 2010 from thorium based fuels to low enriched uranium metal alloy fuels. As funding dried up from the government agencies supporting their thorium work, the company chose to use its assembled nuclear engineering […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Atomic Entrepreneurs, Economics, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Water Cooled Reactors

Bechtel will “pursue” accelerated mPower development

March 8, 2016 By Rod Adams 18 Comments

I’ve relearned a valuable lesson — read press releases and other PR material closely, paying special attention to wiggle words. On Friday, March 4, Bechtel issued a press release titled Bechtel, BWXT to Pursue Acceleration of Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Project. In my excitement, I missed the key word in the headline and in the […]

Filed Under: Business of atomic energy, New Nuclear, Small Nuclear Power Plants, Smaller reactors, Water Cooled Reactors

Bechtel and BWXT have announced an acceleration of Generation mPower

March 5, 2016 By Rod Adams 9 Comments

Note: For an update on this topic see subsequent post titled Bechtel will “pursue” acceleration of mPower project. On March 4, 2016, in a press release issued from Reston, VA, Bechtel and BWX Technologies (BWXT) announced that they would be accelerating their Generation mPower small modular reactor project. Bechtel will take over the project lead […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, New Nuclear, Pressurized Water, Small Nuclear Power Plants, Smaller reactors, Water Cooled Reactors

DOE and UAMPS sign agreement for siting at INL

February 18, 2016 By Rod Adams 24 Comments

At the 12th annual Platts Nuclear Energy Conference, John Kotek, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Energy just made a major announcement. Yesterday, February 17, 2016 Rick Provencher and Doug Hunter signed an agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and UAMPS (Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems). It provides UAMPS with a use […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, New Nuclear, Politics of Nuclear Energy, Small Nuclear Power Plants, Smaller reactors, Water Cooled Reactors

Chinese plan to dominate nuclear market worldwide

January 8, 2014 By Rod Adams

China's Power Sources Projected Through 2035

A California-based correspondent shared the following vignette to a private email list early this morning. An aside — had dinner with a Stanford biz prof teaching entrepreneurship. His 15 Chinese students were at the table too (big table). A few spoke English. One is international marketing head for China Nuclear Power Engineering Company — largest […]

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Fossil fuel competition, International nuclear, New Nuclear, Smaller reactors, Water Cooled Reactors

Naval Reactors should be empowered to show the way – again

November 13, 2013 By Rod Adams

President Obama should task John Richardson with a mission similar to the one that President Dwight Eisenhower gave Hyman G. Rickover. Richardson is the current leader of Naval Reactors (NR), the organization that Rickover built. If directed, NR could begin a new assignment to show others how to manufacture complete nuclear fission power systems starting […]

Filed Under: Atomic Advocacy, Atomic ships, Climate change, Conferences, New Nuclear, Nuclear Ships, Politics of Nuclear Energy, Smaller reactors, Water Cooled Reactors

Effective long form advertisement describing Westinghouse AP1000

October 2, 2013 By Rod Adams

Westinghouse seems intent on taking advantage of the growing capabilities of the internet to distribute effective messages about the value of its products. It may be difficult to explain the benefits of a nuclear reactor producing 1,110 MW of reliable emission-free electricity in a 15 or 30 second TV spot. It might also be difficult […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, AP1000 saga, Pressurized Water, Water Cooled Reactors

B&W mPower™ Reactor Control Room Simulator Begins Operations

December 4, 2012 By Rod Adams

(CHARLOTTE, N.C. – December 4, 2012) – The Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) (NYSE: BWC) is pleased to announce that the production-standard control room prototype for its B&W mPower™ small modular reactor (SMR) is now operational. This engineering simulator is a key milestone in the B&W mPower development program. The B&W mPower control room prototype, […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Nuclear Communications, Small Nuclear Power Plants, Smaller reactors, Water Cooled Reactors

San Onofre (SONGS) owner updates public on cause of steam generator tube wear

June 20, 2012 By Rod Adams

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) held a public information meeting on June 18, 2012 to present findings from their investigation into the cause of the excessive steam generator tube degradation found in units 2 and 3 of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Southern California Edison (SCE), SONGS owner and […]

Filed Under: Nuclear Communications, Water Cooled Reactors

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

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

  • Rod Adams on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Michael Scarangella on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Rod Adams on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors
  • Gareth on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors
  • Rod Adams on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin

Atomic Energy Wells

Enough with “renewables!”

Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?

Atomic Show #303 – Bret Kugelmass, CEO Last Energy

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

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy