AHC/WI: Nuclear Energy for Developing/Rural Areas

Delta Force · May 5, 2015

The United States launched its civilian power reactor program and the Atoms for Peace initiative in the early 1950s due to concern that the United Kingdom and Soviet Union would come to dominate the market. At the time it was thought that nuclear energy would provide energy cheaply enough to sway the political orientations of developing nations. One high ranking American official even claimed that Soviet power reactors represented a larger threat to American interests than their atomic bombs.

Ultimately, there was only really competition for nuclear energy in the developed world, and only in the more American aligned and neutral bloc. In the late 1950s the United States provided Western European nations in EURATOM access to knowledge, financing, and fuel for American light water reactors, which closed a major export market for British and French gas cooled designs. The Soviets sold to their allies.

Where rural power comes in is that the reactors kept growing in size and thus cost, so they were only really useful for large firms in areas with large demand for electricity. In many cases this meant national electricity companies (or the national electricity company) in developed nations and more urbanized or industrialized areas. However, the United States has many smaller utilities in rural areas, both publicly owned and cooperatively owned. They didn't need and couldn't afford the ever larger reactors.

A recently developed approach that could meet the demands of both markets is the small modular reactor approach, which involves small mass produced reactors designed to reach economies of scale. Could something similar have worked in the 1950s and 1960s? Even if not on an economic basis of being most cost effective, could there somehow have been a politically motivated drive to bring nuclear energy (as opposed to research reactors) to developing and rural areas?

Pesterfield · May 5, 2015

What about operation and maintenance, can a nuclear reactor be made rugged enough and idiot proof?

cracou · May 5, 2015

ok... impossible

You need high level maintenance, technologies, a huge water supply, an excellent grid and so on.

Faeelin · May 5, 2015

Wouldn't letting developing countries manage reactors trigger fears about a Congo with nukes (for instance)?

wietze · May 5, 2015

i know there were proposals to use a RTG for powersupply for small communities

Delta Force · May 5, 2015

Pesterfield said:
What about operation and maintenance, can a nuclear reactor be made rugged enough and idiot proof?

Nuclear reactors were rugged enough to have been used at sea, in space, and in remote locations such as Alaska, Antarctica, and the Panama Canal by the end of the 1960s. Many early nuclear reactors in the United States were operated by electricity cooperatives as well.

As these would be small (300 megawatts and smaller) and medium sized reactors (around 600 megawatts), they would also have improved safety (less total heat and volume to contain) and there would be lower consequences in the event an incident did occur, as the reactors would have less fuel inside.

cracou said:
ok... impossible

You need high level maintenance, technologies, a huge water supply, an excellent grid and so on.

Some designs are rather insensitive. The TRIGA reactors are considered impossible to meltdown, but they are smaller research designs. During tests of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (something that would have been commercialized in the 1970s at the earliest), the operators would leave the reactor running over the weekend before returning to continue research during the week. The Process Inherent Ultimate Safety (PIUS) design is intended to go a week without any input (information here and here). It would use borated water and temperature to keep the reactor under control, not have any control rods, and have a concrete pressure vessel (cheaper and safer than metal).

As for electricity grids, some reactors can use natural circulation, first tested on the USS Narwhal in 1969. That would reduce the risk of losing grid power, and it's especially suited for smaller reactors. Some reactors might not even need pumps, PIUS being an example.

The economics might be competitive too. One small reactor (Big Rock Point) was operated commercially in Michigan for decades, and almost made it to the end of its initial 40 year license before being retired three years early as uncompetitive. The economics could in some respects be even better in less developed areas, which lack strong infrastructure for the transport of large amounts of coal, and would require expensive investments to use natural gas and/or petroleum, in addition to the high cost of importing those resources if they don't have them domestically and can't pipeline them in.

In remote areas, such as islands, deserts, or the Arctic, nuclear reactors can be cheaper than bringing in fuel as well. They can also desalinate water if there are no freshwater supplies available, and even produce fuel.

Faeelin said:
Wouldn't letting developing countries manage reactors trigger fears about a Congo with nukes (for instance)?

Oddly enough, many countries were supplied with research reactors powered by highly enriched uranium under Atoms for Peace and similar initiatives in the 1950s and 1960s. President Kennedy was terrified at the prospect of three dozen nuclear armed states in a few years, but the United States didn't get serious about non-proliferation until the 1970s following the Indian nuclear test.

wietze said:
i know there were proposals to use a RTG for powersupply for small communities

I think that is a more recent concept. I'm looking more for Cold War era.

marathag · May 5, 2015

cracou said:
ok... impossible

You need high level maintenance, technologies, a huge water supply, an excellent grid and so on.

Portable Medium Power Plant 3A (PM-3A)

Reactor Type: Pressurized Water
Cooling Type: Steam to Air
Designer: The Martin Company
Power Output (Thermal): 9.36 megawatts
Power Output (Electrical): 1,500 kilowatts at 4,160/2,400 volts; 3 phase, 60 Hz.
Plant Volume: 42,700 ft3
Plant Weight: 450 tons (without buildings)
Number of Packages: 18
Plant Cost: $5.25 million (FY63)
Erection Time: 77 Days
Criticality: 3 March 1962
Shutdown: September 1972
Cores Expended: 5
Uranium-235 Enrichment: 93%
Uranium-235 Supplied: 121.6 kg
Notes: Was sized to fit within C-130s. Modules were no bigger than 30 ft long, 8'8” wide, 8'8” high, or heavier than 30,000 lbs.
Provided steam heating and electric power to the Naval Air Facility at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica.

'Portable' is relative, but it was flown into Antartica

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFEf9UTpvFk

Sior · May 5, 2015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELENA_reactor

The ELENA reactor is a compact Russian PWR of 68-kWe generating capacity currently being developed by the Kurchatov Institute. To develop the reactor, techniques were used derived from the construction and operation of marine and space power plants and the operation experience of the GAMMA reactor.
It is intended for use in remote areas, towns with a population of 1500–2000, or individual consumers requiring a highly reliable power supply, such as hospitals.
The reactor can also be used for water desalination. As of 2014, it is the smallest commercial nuclear reactor being developed.[1][2]
The principal of its development are Kurchatov Institute, Krasnaya zvezda, Izhorskiye Zavody, Atomenergoproekt and VNIINM.

Delta Force · May 5, 2015

These are all good suggestions, but I'm looking more around the time of the 1950s and 1960s. The British, Soviets, and Americans all built demonstration power reactors, and the Atomic Energy Commission involved some public and cooperative utilities in the Power Reactor Demonstration Program. The Power Reactor histories even reference how many of them were interested in nuclear energy and said that future programs might look into reactors for meeting their needs. At the time the program took place (the late 1950s and early 1960s) there wasn't much of a distinction between small reactors and large reactors though, as the largest reactors would be considered small today. The Atomic Energy Commission then turned its attention to ever more powerful (and expensive) reactors, so smaller firms were left out of the Great Bandwagon Market.

The British Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor and Soviet VVER-440 reactors are essentially medium reactors, but the AGR was never exported and the VVER-440 was mostly exported to more developed Soviet allies in Eastern Europe, and one plant was set to be built in Cuba.

pdf27 · May 6, 2015

I think the problems are likely to be political and economic rather than technical - we know lots of small reactors could have been built because they were, for submarines. However, in a post-Hiroshima world nuclear reactors are always going to be seen as dangerous by the public at large, and as such they're likely to be more nervous about a small reactor operated on a shoestring by a local company than by a giant one operated by big company, complete with lots of whizz-bang safety and security features. Cost is the other issue - just digging up dirt and setting fire to it (coal firing) is really, really cheap. Small nuclear can compete if you get the economics of scale right - but you really do need to be on a big scale and not just in manufacture. As far as possible you need shared operational services too - health physics, refuelling, spent fuel disposal, etc. Getting that all together is difficult - it needs either someone with very deep pockets to put it together and sell power-by-the-hour from the reactors to small utilities, or you need to get a very large number of people indeed agreeing to it.

Delta Force · May 7, 2015

pdf27 said:
I think the problems are likely to be political and economic rather than technical - we know lots of small reactors could have been built because they were, for submarines. However, in a post-Hiroshima world nuclear reactors are always going to be seen as dangerous by the public at large, and as such they're likely to be more nervous about a small reactor operated on a shoestring by a local company than by a giant one operated by big company, complete with lots of whizz-bang safety and security features.

Nuclear energy had widespread public support in the United States until around the mid-1970s, so it wouldn't have been an issue for the early part of nuclear energy. Concern really spiked in the 1980s following Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and for the first time there was more opposition than support for nuclear energy. By the 1990s there was more support than opposition again.

Smaller reactors are also inherently safer than larger ones. Concerns about the safety of nuclear energy were first raised by people within the industry, mostly engineers, who thought reactors were growing too large too quickly. They leaked information to the public and others about what could happen in the larger reactors. So, ironically, smaller reactors are not inherently just safer than larger ones, but staying with them might have led to the leaks about the safety of larger reactors and the very grim reactor safety studies put out by the Atomic Energy Commission not happening.

Cost is the other issue - just digging up dirt and setting fire to it (coal firing) is really, really cheap. Small nuclear can compete if you get the economics of scale right - but you really do need to be on a big scale and not just in manufacture. As far as possible you need shared operational services too - health physics, refuelling, spent fuel disposal, etc. Getting that all together is difficult - it needs either someone with very deep pockets to put it together and sell power-by-the-hour from the reactors to small utilities, or you need to get a very large number of people indeed agreeing to it.

Coal was actually near historical price highs in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The competition was more from petroleum until after the 1973 Energy Crisis. Before the crisis petroleum fired power plants actually made up 20% of United States electricity generating capacity! Since the United States is one of the largest coal producers, it's likely petroleum was the major source of competition in most other countries as well.

cracou · May 14, 2015

Quote:
Originally Posted by cracou
ok... impossible

You need high level maintenance, technologies, a huge water supply, an excellent grid and so on.

Portable Medium Power Plant 3A (PM-3A)

Reactor Type: Pressurized Water
Cooling Type: Steam to Air
Designer: The Martin Company
Power Output (Thermal): 9.36 megawatts
Power Output (Electrical): 1,500 kilowatts at 4,160/2,400 volts; 3 phase, 60 Hz.

That's exactly what I was telling you: the design is completely stupid pour use in rural areas. The electric output is ridiculous and the therma output is too high (something that you want in antartica but nowhere else as you would need too much cooling water. Same remark for all sub based reactors)

The second issue is cost: those reactors were horrendously expensive per kw. As they were designed for specific applications it was not that a problem but for rural areas it's not efficient. If you want me to state it another way: to use them you need water (thus a river). It's easier to put a dam on the river!

Delta Force · May 14, 2015

cracou said:
That's exactly what I was telling you: the design is completely stupid pour use in rural areas. The electric output is ridiculous and the therma output is too high (something that you want in antartica but nowhere else as you would need too much cooling water. Same remark for all sub based reactors)

A rural power reactor would be a few dozen or hundred megawatts. As you've identified, the reactor is highly inefficient - only 16.03%. Magnox was considered inefficient even by 1950s standards with its 25% efficiency. Steam turbine reactors of the reactor should achieve around 33% efficiency.

The second issue is cost: those reactors were horrendously expensive per kw. As they were designed for specific applications it was not that a problem but for rural areas it's not efficient.

Nuclear energy was actually cost competitive with coal on its own merits for a period in the 1960s and 1970s. Adjusted for inflation, the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant would have cost around $1.856 billion to build today. With a nameplate capacity of 1130 megawatts, that comes down to around $1642 per kilowatt, which is quite competitive even in capital cost terms. The variable cost of fuel and maintenance is very cheap. Now it would cost several times that to build.

If you want me to state it another way: to use them you need water (thus a river). It's easier to put a dam on the river!

Actually, the most powerful thermal power station in the United States, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, was built in the middle of the Arizona desert.

cracou · May 14, 2015

A rural power reactor would be a few dozen or hundred megawatts. As you've identified, the reactor is highly inefficient - only 16.03%. Magnox was considered inefficient even by 1950s standards with its 25% efficiency. Steam turbine reactors of the reactor should achieve around 33% efficiency.

The one used for the example was producing... 1500 kW

Actually, the most powerful thermal power station in the United States, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, was built in the middle of the Arizona desert.

and with a huge water supply (sewers!)

As for "ease of use": "This power plant employs about 2,055 full-time workers."

Delta Force · May 14, 2015

cracou said:
The one used for the example was producing... 1500 kW

Which is quite a bit less output than a jet engine type peaker engine. A 1.5 megawatt nuclear reactor would have little practical application for utility generation.

and with a huge water supply (sewers!)

As for "ease of use": "This power plant employs about 2,055 full-time workers."

It's the largest thermal power station in the United States, and each of the three reactor units are among the largest output units in the United States as well. Smaller reactors wouldn't need as much water or as many personnel.

Also, some of the employees may work at the switching station, which is one of the most critical pieces of electrical infrastructure in the Southwestern United States.

ejr1963 · May 14, 2015

I remember discussing this issue, when I was going to the Univ. of Wisconsin for Engineering Degree #1 (Nuclear Engineering - which is a dead field here in the US) in the mid 80s. It's already been tried. One of the early nuclear power plants, was near LaCrosse, WI, in the rural community of Genoa, WI. It was run by Dairyland Power Cooperative, and provided power for the residents in the mostly rural county it was located in (Vernon County). It was a BWR (boiling water reactor) design, and at a power output of 50 MW, was pretty small power-wise for a nuke plant reactor, especially when compared to the other two nuke plants in Wisconsin - the now shut down 500 MW Kewaunee nuclear power plant, and the still operating, 1000 MW Point Beach nuclear power plant (both of those nuke plants are less than 20 miles from my hometown).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Crosse_Boiling_Water_Reactor

The Daryland nuclear power plant went on line in 1967, as part of an experimental program by the AEC (Atomic Energy Commision - the predecessor today's Nuclear Regulatory Commission), to learn if small nuke plants were viable for providing power to rural areas. It proved from a power generating standpoint, that yes, it was viable to do so, but the operating costs made it very much NOT a viable economic proposition (especially after the federal subsidies dried up), due to relatively small population/customer base not really providing enough revenue (from paying for power consumption), to offset the high costs of keeping a nuclear power plant running. As a result, when Dairyland's 20 year license expired in 1987, it was not renewed, the power plant was shut down (unlike Point Beach, and Kewaunee, which both underwent life extension programs, to keep them running), and decomissioned.

Nuke plants are not cheap to run. Oh yeah, and after they are shut down, you still have to deal with radioactive waste containment, and disposal issues. To this day, despite being shut down for almost 30 years, they're still dealing with the waste issues at the Dairyland site.

IMO, small nuclear power plants, to this day, just aren't economically viable. Despite using less fuel than much larger nuclear power plants, the fuel costs are still the next best thing to astronomical. The cost for the refueling process, is also extremely high. Only large nuke plants, that provide power to a large customer base, can generate enough revenue, to offset fuel, and refueling costs, and remain economically viable (but even that can change if the economy changes [which why the Kewaunee nuclear power pant was shut down in 2013]).

Delta Force · May 14, 2015

ejr1963 said:
I remember discussing this issue, when I was going to the Univ. of Wisconsin for Engineering Degree #1 (Nuclear Engineering - which is a dead field here in the US) in the mid 80s. It's already been tried. One of the early nuclear power plants, was near LaCrosse, WI, in the rural community of Genoa, WI. It was run by Dairyland Power Cooperative, and provided power for the residents in the mostly rural county it was located in (Vernon County). It was a BWR (boiling water reactor) design, and at a power output of 50 MW, was pretty small power-wise for a nuke plant reactor, especially when compared to the other two nuke plants in Wisconsin - the now shut down 500 MW Kewaunee nuclear power plant, and the still operating, 1000 MW Point Beach nuclear power plant (both of those nuke plants are less than 20 miles from my hometown).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Crosse_Boiling_Water_Reactor

The Daryland nuclear power plant went on line in 1967, as part of an experimental program by the AEC (Atomic Energy Commision - the predecessor today's Nuclear Regulatory Commission), to learn if small nuke plants were viable for providing power to rural areas. It proved from a power generating standpoint, that yes, it was viable to do so, but the operating costs made it very much NOT a viable economic proposition (especially after the federal subsidies dried up), due to relatively small population/customer base not really providing enough revenue (from paying for power consumption), to offset the high costs of keeping a nuclear power plant running. As a result, when Dairyland's 20 year license expired in 1987, it was not renewed, the power plant was shut down (unlike Point Beach, and Kewaunee, which both underwent life extension programs, to keep them running), and decomissioned.

Nuke plants are not cheap to run. Oh yeah, and after they are shut down, you still have to deal with radioactive waste containment, and disposal issues. To this day, despite being shut down for almost 30 years, they're still dealing with the waste issues at the Dairyland site.

IMO, small nuclear power plants, to this day, just aren't economically viable. Despite using less fuel than much larger nuclear power plants, the fuel costs are still the next best thing to astronomical. The cost for the refueling process, is also extremely high. Only large nuke plants, that provide power to a large customer base, can generate enough revenue, to offset fuel, and refueling costs, and remain economically viable (but even that can change if the economy changes [which why the Kewaunee nuclear power pant was shut down in 2013]).

Paying for Price-Anderson might have been a contributing factor as well. A small reactor has to pay the same as a large reactor, even though smaller reactors are less likely to suffer an incident, and when they do they are likely to be less severe due to having less nuclear material.

The Gunslinger · May 15, 2015

This is more of a Canadian issue, but in remote northern communities where burning diesel fuel is the prime source of power and a huge amount of money is spent on a fuel haul annually I wonder if it might not be more viable.

It might actually be better for your health too having electric heat rather than a diesel burning stove for ten months a year.

cracou · May 15, 2015

even though smaller reactors are less likely to suffer an incident,

there is no scientifi evidence of such a thing

and when they do they are likely to be less severe due to having less nuclear material.

define "severe"

Delta Force · May 15, 2015

cracou said:
there is no scientifi evidence of such a thing

Surface area increases far less rapidly than volume. If a loss of cooling incident (which if left uncorrected progresses to a partial or full meltdown) occurs, smaller reactors are better able to withstand it, because the surface area of the vessel is larger relative to the volume of heat (nuclear materials) contained inside. That gives better cooling through the pressure vessel itself, and also means it takes longer for material to melt through the pressure vessel. It takes quite some time for a loss of coolant incident to become a meltdown, and if coolant is restored it is possible for even a full meltdown to be contained within the pressure vessel itself, never escaping into the containment structure. A meltdown refers to the fuel itself melting, it does not necessarily mean the material leaves the reactor. For example, Three Mile Island was a full meltdown contained by the pressure vessel.

define "severe"

There's less material to be released, as the reactor contains less nuclear material, and thus less radioactivity. A 300 megawatt nuclear reactor has four times less nuclear material than a 1200 megawatt nuclear reactor.

Also, it's back to the reactor being smaller, making it less likely for a problem to progress to a severe nuclear incident.