Babcock & Wilcox

Nukes: Why small is beautiful

February 21, 2010

If anyone tells you they know what building a new nuclear power plant is going to cost, be skeptical.

No one has built a commercial nuclear power plant in decades in the U.S. During the 1970s and 1980s, cost overruns derailed more than 100 reactors. (Ever-increasing regulatory burdens and sky-high interest rates drove up costs, too.) In part because no reactor has built here in so long, no bank or group of banks wants to take on the risk of lending more for a new plant. That’s why the Southern Co., which plans to build two new reactors in Georgia, needs the $8.3 billion in U.S. government loan guarantees announced last week by President Obama. While all the other worries swirling around nuclear power—what to do with the waste, fear of proliferation, the threat of terrorism, safety and the rest—play some role, the most important thing standing in the way of a so-called nuclear renaissance in the U.S. is that building big new plants costs too darn much money.

And yet, if we want to stop burning coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, to generate baseload electricity, we need to explore the nuclear option. That means finding ways to bring down the costs.

One option? Build smaller nukes.

Hyperion's small underground reactor, compared to a conventional nuclear plant

Hyperion's 12-ft tall underground reactor, compared to a 170-foot high above-ground conventional plant

Small nukes–sometimes called backyard nukes, because some of them could literally be buried in a suburban yard–were the topic of an excellent front-page story last week in The Wall Street Journal (Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes, subscription req.) and a panel discussion the following day at the Platt’s nuclear energy conference in Bethesda, Md.  Small nukes are a hot topic right now because three utility companies–Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp.–have agreed to work with Babcock & Wilcox, a longtime industry supplier, to get a small reactor design approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Babcock & Wilcox reactor, called mPower, would generate 125 to 140 megawatts of power, about a tenth as much as the big plants being proposed by the Southern Co. and others. Other modular nukes are even smaller: NuScale Power, a venture-funded startup, wants to build a reactor that’s 65 feet long and 15 feet in diameter, capable of generating 45 MW of power. Another startup, called Hyperion Power, is touting  a 25MW reactor, which would be compact enough (5 feet across by 12 feet high) to fit in a pickup truck, yet powerful enough to supply about 20,000 homes. [click to continue…]

{ 7 comments }

Rod Adams

Rod Adams

Rod Adams has not followed a typical career path: Formerly the chief engineer on a U.S. Navy submarine, he’s now a prominent blogger on nuclear power.

Rod is well qualified to preside over Atomic Insights, the blog where he writes about energy supplies, technology and politics from an atomic point of view.

For one thing, he knows nukes–not only was he an engineer on a nuclear-powered sub, he has taught “the principles of naval weapons systems” at the U.S. Naval Academy.

For another, he’s trained to do without sleep. “You get four hours of sleep, maximum,” he says, about submarine life. Now, he is able to hold down a day job as a Navy commander (assigned as a ship and submarine maintenance analyst) and still write, prolifically, averaging four to 10 posts a week. That’s because he often posts to his blog between 3 a.m. and 5:30 a.m.

Recently, Rod and I met at 7 a.m. (early for me, mid-morning for him) for coffee at a Starbucks in Crystal City, Va., near his office, to talk about nuclear power. I wanted to get the perspective of an expert who has, literally, lived with nukes. He handed me this:

photo

“You know what that is?” he asked me. “It’s the equivalent of a ton of coal.” It would be, that is, if the tiny metal cylinder was made of uranium. [click to continue…]

{ 9 comments }