xpost: Hyperion small modular power reactors

[phantom power]

I notice that this is one of those "available in five years" predictions.

xpost: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4422986&mesg_id=4422986

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
"Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

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.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m <£13m> each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.'

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com
from the website:
"Invented at the famed Los Alamos National Laboratory, Hyperion small modular power reactors make all the benefits of safe, clean nuclear power available for remote locations. For both industrial and community applications, Hyperion offers reliable energy with no greenhouse gas emissions. Hyperion power is also cheaper than fossil fuels and, when you consider the cost of land and materials, watt to watt, Hyperion’s innovative energy technology is even more affordable than many developing “alternative” energy technologies.

Small enough to be transported on a ship, truck or train, Hyperion power modules are about the size of a "hot tub" — approximately 1.5 meters wide. Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail. Like a power battery, Hyperion modules have no moving parts to wear down, and are delivered factory sealed. They are never opened on site. Even if one were compromised, the material inside would not be appropriate for proliferation purposes. Further, due to the unique, yet proven science upon which this new technology is based, it is impossible for the module to go supercritical, “melt down” or create any type of emergency situation. If opened, the very small amount of fuel that is enclosed would immediately cool. The waste produced after five years of operation is approximately the size of a softball and is a good candidate for fuel recycling."

[tinrobot]

1. Very interesting.

I like that it's a modular size and that it uses a type of nuclear reaction that can't go haywire. The obvious concerns are waste disposal and security.

What exactly happens to the radioactive material once it's used? Does the waste disposal expense from these things get offloaded on to the taxpayer and go to that boondoggle known as Yucca Mountain?

Can someone dig one of these up and steal the radioactive material for nefarious purposes? (dirty bomb, etc...)

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Hyperion Website

Rather than having most of the replies simply guess, we should refer to Hyperion's own website for the specs:

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/">Hyperion Power Generation

Hyperion appears to be a Los Alamos Energy Lab spin-off. Funnily enough, some of the principals of Hyperion also have significant non-nuclear renewables experience.

The Hyperion "atomic battery" was also discussed last year, because the town of Galena, Alaska wanted to get one of the (smaller) units. The price was much higher, and they decided to stick with their conventional energy system, but may reconsider. Also note that Toshiba is developing a smaller "atomic battery" (about half a megawatt, IIRC).

--p!

[NNadir]

3. My friend Rod Adams interviewed these folks not so long ago, just before

interviewing me for the second time.

It's up on his podcast.

There are some regulatory problems with small reactors, involving licensing fees.

There are certain synergies between renewables and nuclear power, particularly in the field of molten salt chemistry. I've found myself reading some solar thermal papers recently because of the chemistry and salt physics.

But I don't know these guys at Hyperion personally. I may give them a call one day though.

[phantom power]

4. A couple questions came to mind

1) Since this is essentially energy on the "small/distributed" model, is it the most efficient possible use of resources for nuclear energy?

2) Is it prohibitive to switch these things out every 7-10 years?

3) Does this fuel cycle* promote fuel reprocessing, when spent units are returned to factory?


(*) is "fuel cycle" even the right term for a thermal generator?

[NNadir]

6. Small reactors have a very different niche than large reactors, but they're relatively common.

The most common class of small reactor, probably, is the naval reactor. It is probably the case than many hundreds of thousands of people have lived within 100 meters of these types of reactors for many thousands of reactor-years.

I think commercial shipping would be an excellent use of small reactors, since a rather remarkable, if unstated source of air pollution - including dangerous carbon dioxide - is actually released by freighters.

I published either a diary on the other website where I write, or maybe here, on a few scientific papers I collected on this subject, the subject of the dangerous fossil fuel waste implications of existing ships.

Small reactors are also a good idea in remote locations. Many years ago, a collection of dumb people around the world decided to ban nuclear reactors (which already operated there) in Antartica.

The result has been a catastrophe, with oil drums littering the place. There are many small cities - Alaska comes to mind - but also remote places like Observatories in remote mountain areas, that could also be served by these reactors.

Anywhere that has access to a grid, however, is best served by large reactors, although obviously one cannot make a reactor infinitely large. I think reactors operating between 800 MWe and 1500MWe are an ideal size. A few very special types of reactors probably need to be smaller, particularly where a fast neutron spectrum is involved.

I don't believe that the costs of producing these small reactors is all that large. Probably the licensing is the largest economic problem. Because they are designed to run without much interference, adjustment or maintainence - they are more like batteries than devices - they may be relatively cheap, but I don't really know.

I recall reading somewhere that the Hyperion type reactor involved a particular type of uranium chemistry to make it work, and that it didn't involve thorium.

Rod Adams' small reactor design is a coated fuel particle (TRISO) type reactor moderated by nitrogen rather than helium and thus is similar, but not identical, to a HTGR, high temperature gas cooled reactor. The reactor runs on the Brayton cycle which is akin to jet turbines. I interviewed him about this reactor on his podcast show.

If I recall correctly - I've not looked at the design in quite a while - the Toshiba reactor involved a particular type of burn up strategy using burnable poisons. It was a very clever balancing act with distributions of isotopes and breeding, where the reactor's reactivity is controlled by the breeding in the fuel and the depletion of neutron absorbers to maintain criticality. I don't think thorium was involved, but yes, thorium can be used in many creative ways. However the most interest, but not the only interest in thorium reactors involves thermal spectrum reactors, because U-233 made from thorium has a a fairly high ratio of neutrons released per fission by thermal neutron, which is essentially unique, close to 2.5 neutrons per fission.

The record breaking nucleon for producing neutrons is Pu-241, which in the epithermal region (slowed by not slowest neutrons) in Pu-241, which can produce close to 3 neutrons per fission. This isotope has a half-life of only about 13 years, meaning that it needs to be burned quickly during generation within the reactor from Pu-240, which is a very common isotope in MOX fuels. This makes Pu-241 a most interesting fuel and is a good reason why once through plutonium recycling is probably not a great idea. I favor continuous long term recycling of plutonium, with enough recycled under fast conditions to achieve a 100% utilization of all the isotopes in natural uranium. I think there may have been some Pu-241 juice in the Toshiba design, where the Pu-241 was generated in situ from neutron capture in Pu-240.

I am working on a reactor design that interestingly enough can have several different theoretical power levels adjustable over the lifetime of the reactor. The reactor is designed to have a life time of several centuries, and it is a multi-task reactor, not designed to just produce power for a grid, though it can do that. It's a very neat trick, if I must say so myself, and I must. It would seem that at least thus far, the design is unique, and believe me, I've been looking at a lot of literature around the world to see if a similar design is available. Strange as it seems, it isn't. There are some profound technical challenges with this design, but none seem insurmountable.

I should have done this years ago.

[TheWraith]

7. It seems odd to me that they banned nuclear reactors in Antarctica.

It would strike me as one of the places where there would be the least concern. Yes, unspoiled arctic protection and all that, but there's already the contradiction there about burning fossil fuels.

As to nuclear propulsion for commercial shipping, the catch with doing that is the obvious: making sure companies didn't stick nuclear-driven ships under the flags of Chad, and the Federated States of Micronesia, to avoid safety inspections.

Out of curiousity, you say your reactor design is multi-task: what interesting things does it do other than powering a grid?

[Throckmorton]

8. Tritium loss into the glacier

The environment was so pristine that the loss of Tritium into the glaciers was an unexpected consequence. In my youth, I worked directly for one of the members of the design team that went to McMurdo in 1964 to help with the start-up of the plant.

The US Army ran to similar plants, one in Thule Greenland and the other in the Canal Zone for about 20 years.

[TheWraith]

9. Maybe I'm missing something...

But I don't follow what you mean by "tritium loss into the glaciers."

[Throckmorton]

10. Hydrogens heaviest isotope,

Which, being Hydrogen, is very difficult to keep from leaking out through the tiniest of cracks. Tritium, with it's 7.5 year half-life, doesn't occur in earth's environment to any great degree. They found that the Tritium levels around the reactor building were something like 200 times what should have been there due to natural sources (the sun does make some) and atmospheric bomb testing, which was wide-spread in the years just before the plant was commissioned.


The Multi-Nation Antarctic Commission decided to shut it down in 1968, if memory serves me.

[TheWraith]

11. Well, I suppose that's the most straightforward scenario I envisionied

I guess I just don't see why it's such an issue. 200 times the natural level is, if I recall, still not exactly an enormous amount, and as you pointed out it decays quickly. Not to mention those were primitive reactors compared to the better secured and maintained models we have today.

(Shrug) I guess it doesn't matter, it just seems puzzling why we'd find it okay to keep burning oil for power down there, but a little tritium is a deal breaker.

[Throckmorton]

12. I didn't say it made perfect sense,

but that was the excuse given in the late 1960's for shutting the MP3A down.

So they burn millions of gallons of kerosene instead, and we all know how good that is for the environment.

Personally, I think that it was the US Navy being the operator that was at the root of the issue.

Cold War Anti-American thinking, US nuclear power plant, US nuclear navy, bad imperialist US pushing it's nuclear self on the Antarctic. Must stop at all costs.

[TheWraith]

13. You're right, that does make a lot more sense. Pity, though.

They've got to be torching a HUGE amount of kerosene constantly to be keeping those places running.

[TheWraith]

14. Oh, and it occurs to me that a nuclear reactor in the antarctic has a natural advantage.

You could lay piping for the superheated water exhaust to use it in hot water radiators, turning an otherwise wasted part of the cycle into valuable heat energy. Since that's where a huge amount of your energy's going to go anyway, it would increase efficiency.

[Throckmorton]

15. Actually, it did provide heating and drinking water,.

It cooled the main turbine exhaust with snow that was dumped on top of the condenser. This melt water was then used to supply drinking water for the base.

Funny anecdote, the melt water was so pure, that the self-filling coffee urns in the mess hall would always overfill. The lack on impurities meant that it was too low in conductivity to trip the full sensor at the top.

[phantom power]

16. Tangentially, I'm glad to have you posting here in E/E.

I wish we had at least one regular poster here who has work experience in all the different energy industries we discuss.

[madokie]

17. I vote in the affirmative to that

[phantom power]

5. One other question: could fuel for these things be bred from thorium?

[BeFree]

18. Alright!

Power.... too cheap to meter!

Finally, just as humans were running out of old ways to kill the rest of the world, we come up with a new way....

Now we can keep growth going and it only costs $250 a year per house. Our potential is unlimited!

[TheWraith]

19. It's not $250 per year per house, it's $250 to install.

I'm not sure if there is a per year cost, or how long they last.

[Liberal Progressive]

20. The fuel has to be changed out every ten years. nt

[kristopher]

21. Actually that is $2500/home, isn't it?

The OP used the Palin method for calculating costs.

$25,000,000/10,000=$2500

[bananas]

22. Pro-nukes can't do math.

Pretty amazing when the CEO gets it wrong, the reporter doesn't notice, the editor doesn't notice, and all the pro-nuke bloggers don't notice.

Here's the money shot from the OP, an excerpt from The Guardian quoting the CEO:

'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m <£13m> each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.'

Yeah, I feel so safe with these guys behind the wheel.

HUGH UPDATE!!!

I just checked the Guardian article - they've added some updates!!!


• This article was amended on Monday November 11 2008. $25m divided by 10,000 is $2,500 not $250. This has been changed.

• This article was amended on Sunday November 16 2008. Editing errors above resulted in our reporting that 'scientists at Los Alamos' say that nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale by 2013. This was actually announced by Hyperion Power Generation, the company that will make the reactors. They licensed the technology from Los Alamos. Editing errors also led us to claim that the $25m <£13m> reactors cost a community with 10,000 households, 'a very affordable $250 per home'. That's actually £16m, not £13m, and $2,500, not $250. Hyperion CEO John Deal told us that he hoped to produce electricity for '10 cents per watt anywhere in the world,' but has since amended that to '10 cents per kilowatt hour'. The numerical errors have been corrected.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

[TheWraith]

23. Actually looking at it now, it appears the CEO was talking yearly cost after all.

$25 million installed cost, with a ten year lifespan, divided by 10k households is $250. I would guess either there was a misunderstanding by the reporter during the interview, or else the CEO didn't listen carefully enough to what the engineers told him to say.