Mini Reactors Could Clear Nuclear Hurdles

By: Richard T. Stuebi

Although not popular to many in the environmental community, one low/zero-carbon energy supply alternative that has to be at least put on the table for serious consideration is nuclear energy.

Yes, yes, we know the litany of concerns about nuclear energy: runaway fission leading to explosive catastrophes like the one that occurred in 1986 at Chernobyl, long-lived and extremely toxic waste products, and the use of fuels that make for scary weapons-grade materials for terrorists to exploit.

The U.S. nuclear industry hasn't completed a new nuclear power generating unit in many years -- though it's generally not for the reasons listed above. Rather, the main damper on the U.S. nuclear industry has been high cost: to achieve economies of scale, the optimal nuclear unit size has long been thought to be greater than 1000 megawatts, which given the capital intensity of nuclear technologies (a November 2007 article in Nuclear Engineering suggests construction costs of at least $4000/kilowatt), implies minimum investments of several billion dollars. Given the massive market and regulatory uncertainties facing electric utilities, few have been willing to step up to the nuclear plate and lay down such a huge bet.

In recent weeks, I've seen not one but two articles -- "Neighborhood Nukes" in Forbes and "Mini Nuclear Plants to Power 20,000 Homes" in The Guardian -- covering the investigation of small-scale nuclear power generating units. Both articles prominently feature the New Mexico company Hyperion Power Generation, which claims to be developing a hot-tub sized unit of 25 megawatts capacity.

Spun out from Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Hyperion design is intended to overcome many of the obstacles associated to date with nuclear energy.

As The Guardian article summarizes, "the miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground."

From Forbes: "Hyperion's design uses uranium hydride instead of traditional uranium with control rods. The reactor gets rid of heat using thermal conductivity, which eliminates the big water-cooling systems and their containment bulwarks."

Stunningly, Hyperion promises an installed cost of $1000/kw, and claims a sales backlog of $2.5 billion, with 100 firm orders.

So, maybe there's a renaissance of nuclear energy in the offing. Steve Martin may have had it right, after all: "Let's get small."

But, before you get too excited, remember that the nuclear industry has been down this path before: in 1954, Lewis Strauss, then-Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, hinted that nuclear energy would in the not-too-distant-future make electricity "too cheap to meter." We're still waiting.

Comments

[DiggerUK:]

Mr. Stuebi, does the the Hyperion design have any features similar to the Liquid Thorium Reactors that use Uranium 233. Or is it wildly different?

2008 Dec 23 09:15 PM

[bluesmoke:]

Excellent article - this is American ingenuity at its finest. They have a good website too. Be interesting to see how the NIMBY's treat it.

2008 Dec 24 09:03 AM

[Paul Killinger:]

Blue,

I think we already know the answer to that one.

2008 Dec 24 10:35 AM

[Paul Killinger:]

Richard,

Of course, SMALLER is BETTER. And not just in the nuclear power generation arena. Just think of the money we could have saved by not having had to establish the TARP.

A home builder friend of mine once told me the secret to his success. When demand for his product ebbed, he cut his overhead to the bone. He accomplished this, he confided, by snapping off the light switch in his den.

That's our problem today with all these "too big to fail" banks and corporations dotting the landscape. We need to get smaller to be successful. Nuclear power electric generation is a great place to start.

2008 Dec 24 10:45 AM

[Paul Killinger:]

Unfortunately, the regulators may not think much of this idea, either. It's simple, great ideas like this one that could put them out of work.

I wonder, if you know, how much of the $1K per kw cost of these new mini reactors would be spent on regulatory compliance and mandates? That may be the true genius behind them, streamlining the regulatory gauntlet.

2008 Dec 24 10:54 AM

[searcher:]

From a regulatory viewpoint, 'small' units of generation means many such units. Regardless of the a priori safety hurdles met or obviated by the design and installation of these units, intense regulation will be demanded by those relatively near the units. It is impossible, or so it seems, to underestimate our human capacity for hubris and/or mendacity. There is no human endeavor that can be 'fool proof'. Even a miniscule 'failure rate' due to design or installation or operation represents a large absolute number if the universe of installations is large enough. It's especially too large if one of that number is in my back yard. Thus intense regulation.

2008 Dec 24 01:00 PM

[searcher:]

Oooops, meant "..overestimate.."

2008 Dec 24 01:04 PM

[isaac the t...:]

this would be an awesome low carbon compliment to solar/wind/geothermal/... gas. bring it on.
(this is coming from someone who as a youngster was arrested protesting against nuc plants- times have changed and so must we)

2008 Dec 27 12:45 AM