Generation IV and V Technology Offer to Make Opposition to Nuclear Power a Historical Artifact

Courtesy Terrestrial Energy Inc.

by James C. Sherlock

We write here often about electric power in Virginia, but usually related to public utilities. We focus on Dominion and Appalachian Power.

There is another big market: industrial power plants independent of utilities and the grid (and thus not requiring State Corporation Commission approval).

Those are not reflected in the plans of the utilities except inasmuch as they lower demand.

Users include the steel and cement industries, oil and gas, pulp and paper, mining, and chemical industries. And military bases.

The United States Navy is the world’s most advanced operational user of nuclear power and thus has both a culture and a corporate structure to support nuclear energy.

Each of the military services needs to maintain the independence of its major bases from utilities to control costs, to ensure reliability by independence from the grid and thus to support uninterrupted operations.

But even the Navy does not currently use nuclear power to provide co-generation of the steam and electricity needs of its shore infrastructure.

Among the technical reasons industrial power plants are conventionally powered:

  1. low-heat commercial nuclear reactors are not capable of efficient co-generation; and
  2. high-heat newer technology reactors shorten the life span of the graphite in the cores.

Molten Salt Reactors (MSR),

a Generation IV nuclear technology system, were pioneered at Oak Ridge National Laboratory starting in 1968.

An advanced co-generation MSR targeted for commercial deployment in 2030 just achieved a major milestone in Canada.

It offers clean co-generation.

Dow Chemical has a contract with another industrial nuclear reactor supplier using very different Gen IV technology.  With Dow X-Energy will jointly develop and build a 4-reactor demonstration plant at one of Dow’s Gulf Coast plants. To give an idea of the practicality of these solutions, X-Energy’s plant components are truck-transportable.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) will fund X-Energy’s costs.

Nuclear-powered co-generation uses thus will extend beyond military infrastructure to large consumers across the industrial base.

In both conventional and nuclear power plants, thermal energy is converted to mechanical energy to do the work of turning turbines to create electricity.

Power plants are heat engines. As a general rule, the higher the source temperature from a heat engine, the more mechanical work is available — the higher its thermal efficiency.

The industrial facilities with which I am most familiar, naval bases, depend upon co-generation of heat (steam) at high temperature (585 deg.) and electrical power by onsite plants.

Siemens Energy, a major supplier of industrial power plant turbines, shows its lineup here.

U.S. naval bases currently use or are converting to natural-gas-fired plants to accomplish co-generation. Those plants have relatively high thermal efficiency in the 45% range.

For a look at the scale of the requirements at Norfolk Naval Base see here.

But the Navy, and I am sure the other services, has run into environmental and environmental justice opposition even for newer conventional power plants that are more efficient and less polluting than the ones they replace.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of those same communities as the Navy and the other services plan to eliminate with nuclear plants the pollution to which they currently object.

While currently operational nuclear plants produce clean electricity, they are water-cooled for the safety of their operation. They create heat at low temperature (290 deg.) and their thermal efficiency is in the 30% – 33% range.

Terrestrial Energy Incorporated (TEI) in April achieved a milestone with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) that is very important, exciting even.

It successfully completed a Phase 2 pre-licensing vendor design review with its
Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR), a Gen IV technology nuclear power generator that also provides high temperature steam at thermal efficiency that matches that of gas-fired plants.

The executive summary of that CNSC review most importantly states, that while there is more work to do,

No fundamental barriers to licensing were identified.

IMSR technology description from TEI:

The IMSR® Plant uses molten salt fission technology. This is high-temperature fission technology, classified as Generation IV fission technology class under international treaty.

Molten salt fission technology uses a molten salt as coolant and fuel. Conventional fission technology uses a water coolant circulating through a highly pressurized system to cool solid fuel elements, which are the signature technology features of current nuclear power plants.

A nuclear reactor requires a high-performance coolant for safe and efficient commercial operation. Molten salts are such coolants. They have exceptional thermal stability, making them superior reactor coolants compared to water.

This permits safe high-temperature and low-pressure reactor operation, which is crucial for heat supply to the industry, to reduce the cost of nuclear energy, and transform the efficiency of nuclear electric power generation.

A similar application review is underway at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission with support from the U.S. Department of Energy.

The primary limiting factor of MSRs in commercial applications has been the lifespan of the graphite in a high-temperature reactor core. TEI says that it has solved that problem with replaceable reactor cores that it claims are are “simple and safe (and cost effective) to replace” at seven-year intervals. (See image at opening.)

We’ll see.

But the milestone in Canada is a major achievement.

The U.S. Navy seems perfectly positioned by experience and culture to be an early adopter of commercialized molten salt reactors that meet the needs of its facilities.

Norfolk Naval Station, Oceana Naval Air Station, Joint Base Little Creek and the shipyards in Hampton Roads come instantly to mind.

The market beyond the military bases and shipyards just here in Hampton Roads can include the Port of Virginia.

Even bigger breakthroughs in design show promise for the future. See Transmutex as an example of Gen V.

The current residual opposition to nuclear power based on prior experience with early generation light water reactors will soon, with the operationalization of Gen 4, seem quaint.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

24 responses to “Generation IV and V Technology Offer to Make Opposition to Nuclear Power a Historical Artifact”

  1. Nathan Avatar

    Great article, but minor edit needed below:

    “The U.S. Navy seems perfectly positioned by experience and culture to be an early adapter of commercialized molten salt reactors that meet the needs of its facilities.”

    I believe you mean early “adopter.”

    As with natural gas, nuclear reactors require fuel. Guess what part of the world produces the most of that? Currently, 45% of the world production comes from Kazakhstan, a nation that borders Russia and China.

    https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx

    The U.S. may not recognize the importance of energy, but our enemies sure do.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Thx for the edit check

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Well, I also suspect you mean Appalachian Power Company as the other major Virginia investor-owned utility, not Alleghany.

        1. Acbar Avatar

          Apco is now the only other “major” IOU in Virginia. From Wikipedia: “In 2010, Allegheny [Power] officially sold their Virginia service area [served through their subsidiary, “Potomac Edison Company”]. Counties west of the Blue Ridge Mountains were purchased by Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative of Mount Crawford, Virginia, while counties to the east were sold to Rappahannock Electric Cooperative of Fredericksburg, Virginia. . . . In February 2010, Allegheny announced plans to merge with FirstEnergy. The merger was completed on February 25, 2011.”

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Highly corrosive materials and radiation. So, tell me, whatcha gonna use to build these? Glass?
    https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4372873
    What’s changed?

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Read the article and the numerous links to the nuclear regulatory commissions of the U.S. and Canada.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Good grief. You did notice that report is from 1972, right?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        What’s changed? That report was cited as still relevant in 2015 by the French.

        A pre-licensing preliminary design review? That’s what you’re excited about? That just means the PowerPoint presentation was colorful.

        All based on two experimental reactors that haven’t run since 1969 and then only intermittently.

        https://theconversation.com/nuclear-power-why-molten-salt-reactors-are-problematic-and-canada-investing-in-them-is-a-waste-167019

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          You are apparently upset that at least two Gen IV nuclear technologies are about to demonstrate commercial viability. Can’t help you with that. Call Dow and the Idaho National Lab and tell whoever answers the phone that they are wasting their money. I’m sure they’ll call back.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            If by “about to” you mean 10 years minimum… Nah, they’re not wasting their dough. They’ll make technological advances. They may not produce a functioning MSR, but something may use it. Maybe fusion?

          2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Thank you Nostradamus.

            I’ll check with you next time before I report the findings of the nuclear regulatory agencies of two nations and the investments of commercial companies in the technology.

            Hope you have the time to spare us.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            You’re welcome. Extrapolation is a dangerous game, not to be done lightly. Remember all of those 5-year plans the Soviets made? Hell, has a CBO 5-year debt projection ever been right?

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Green hydrogen looks to be closer… and it’s still a ways away…

    3. This is taken from the ThorCon Power FAQs. “Fluorine gas is very reactive, combining with almost any other element. Once combined as a fluoride, the resultant salt is very stable. Sodium fluoride is in toothpaste. After 4 years of operation at Oak Ridge, the molten fluoride salts did corrode the prototype metal reactor vessel (Pot) to a depth of 0.1 mm. In ThorCon corrosion is controlled by managing the redox potential and by changing out the Pot after 4 years of use.”
      Terrestrial Energy and Thorcon Power have very similar reactor designs, in fact they started out together as one company. Hope this helps.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        So the reactor is swapped out every four years and stored along with the spent fuel.

        And radiation’s effects on pipes and structures? Hardening and brittling?

    4. Steven Curtis Avatar
      Steven Curtis

      Stainless steel

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Alas, no. It’s all in the name. Stainless, not stainproof.

        1. Steven Curtis Avatar
          Steven Curtis

          You really need to study the technology before you try to discuss it further.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            It was a pun on the word “less”, but still, exposure to radiation, stainless corrodes at an accelerated rate.

  3. Teddy007 Avatar
    Teddy007

    SMRs are always ten years away and always will be. SMRs do not solve problems, they are change the problems as compared to large reactors. And once again, people would rather freeze or bake in their homes rather than live anywhere near an SMR.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      I’d like a small Gen V reactor in my garage, actually.

    2. Steven Curtis Avatar
      Steven Curtis

      You are confusing SMR with fusion.

  4. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    Ft Meade would be another likely prospect for a small reactor. They’ve historically been very close to the electrical edge of what public utilities could supply. At one point folks there couldn’t even bring a coffee pot to plug in without authorization. Think Dominion’s forecast of data center loads as lived history at Meade for as long as there have been computers.

    1. Acbar Avatar

      No more dangerous than being near one on a nuclear submarine. But Teddy007 and NN above illustrate the p.r. problem with U.S. nuclear power of any kind; and Germany’s disastrous dabbling in “Energiewende” illustrates the durable political consequences (France, meanwhile, is laughing all the way to the bank from added nuclear power profits on the European grid).

Leave a Reply