AI
How do Russia and the US measure up on SMRs?
Recent developments have focused attention on small modular reactor activity in the US. But Russia is pressing ahead with developments of its own.
As previously reported in Nuclear Energy Insider, the mPower America Team, made up of the Babcock & Wilcox Company, the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bechtel, is powering ahead with SMR commercialisation plans after winning US Department of Energy funding.
Meanwhile other American SMR developers, including Westinghouse, NuScale Power, Gen4 Energy and SMR LLC, are pressing forward with ambitious programmes of their own.
At stake, not only an important domestic market, but also the potential for exports to emerging nuclear customers in regions such as the Middle East and North Africa. But US manufacturers are not alone in the race to make SMRs a commercial reality.
Formidable competitor
Russia represents a formidable competitor, with a range of innovative SMR designs in the making. The KLT-40S, for example, is a 35MWe barge-mounted pressurised water reactor (PWR) already under construction.
Using a modified naval propulsion reactor design, the concept could be used for applications ranging from powering coastal towns to desalinating water.
A similar but larger design, also based on naval propulsion systems and for use on barges, is the VBER-300 PWR, delivering 300MWe.
Other SMRs under development include the VK-300, a 250MWe boiling water reactor; the ABV-6M, an 8.6MWe pressurised light water reactor; and the SVBR-100, which is a 101MWe lead-bismuth variant.
And last October the World Nuclear Association (WNA) reported on a USD$805m experimental lead-cooled nuclear reactor being built at the enticingly named Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC), in Tomsk.
“If successful, the small BREST-300 unit could be the first of a new wave of Russian fast reactors,” said the WNA.
“The BREST design is seen as a successor to the BN series and the 300MWe unit at the SCC could be the forerunner to a 1,200MWe version for wide deployment as a commercial power generation unit.”
Of all these variants, the KLT-40S is by far the most advanced, with some sources stating that up to seven barges could be deployed by 2015, in locations around the Arctic. The BREST concept, meanwhile, is expected to be designed by 2014 and built before 2020.
BREST, which stands for Bystry Reaktor so Svintsovym Teplonositelem or 'Fast Reactor with Lead Coolant', is seen as the front-running design for a new generation of SMRs that can be scaled up to around 1GW and deployed across the country in the 2030s, according to analysts.
It is clearly apparent the Russians are well aware of the potential market for SMRs. As World Nuclear Association analyst Jeremy Gordon puts it: “Reactors of that size are the missing link. Any other fuel you name, you can scale up all the way, but we don’t start until about 900MW.”
How do Russian designs measure up?
But how do the Russian designs measure up to those being developed in the US? One advantage of the American models is that they are based on tried-and-tested PWR technology, which makes them a safe bet for markets with previous nuclear experience.
Russian lead-cooled reactors such as the BREST design, meanwhile, involve new technology and hence represent more of a risk. “It’s that bit more racy,” says one insider.
On the other hand, buyers of Soviet reactors know the technology is backed by Russia’s entire nuclear industry, and not just a single vendor within it, which will be a powerful draw for would-be customers comfortable with the political implications of trading with Russia.
Regarding the US offering, John Goosen, vice president of Westinghouse Innovation and SMR Development, is keen to emphasise the quality aspects of ‘made in America’ products.
“While we will refrain from commenting on competitors’ designs, both foreign and US, we will say that US SMR designs will undergo the rigorous licensing process put in place by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” he says.
“Following an extensive safety review, agency approval of the designs will be formalised via a specific design certification rulemaking. This process allows the public to review and comment on the designs up front, before anyone builds a plant of this design.”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approves designs for 15 years, he adds, and once a design certification application has been submitted the NRC takes up to around 60 months to complete the review and rulemaking. It all adds up to a pretty diligent process.
In addition, Goosen points out: “Our SMR programme is backed up by Westinghouse’s 50-plus years of nuclear design and operating plant experience, and more than 6,000 reactor years of safe, commercial operations as well as a 14,000-person nuclear workforce.
“We also have more than 15 years of advanced small reactor design experience.
“Our regulatory knowledge and expertise from this experience and previously with the certification process for three advanced light water reactor designs and a licensed fuel design offer a high degree of certainty for future licensing of the SMR design.”
In the coming years when SMRs are developed and approved by the relevant regulatory authorities in respective nations, such as the US and Russia, the rest of the nuclear industry will have their own set of priorities and choices when it comes to technology, price and regulatory vigour. Only then, will the market be able to determine who has the lead on SMR commercialisation, deployment and global market dominance.
http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/small-modular-reactors/how-do-russia-and-us-measure-smrs
Q: What does the winning of this award mean in practical terms?
A: Having the additional funding from DOE will allow the mPower America Team to remain on an aggressive schedule for potential deployment by 2022 by providing an opportunity for reimbursement of some of TVA’s costs, up to 50% cost share by DOE.
This enables us to move a little faster than we would without the cost share. The FOA will provide funds in the form of reimbursement of qualified costs for the development and licensing of the B&W mPower reactor.
Q: Will mPower America be expanding its personnel/operations, and if so, how?
A: Currently the mPower America team has hundreds of engineers, technicians and operators in the U.S. working on all aspects of the project. As we continue to work aggressively toward deployment, particularly once we enter the manufacturing and construction stage, we expect a significant number of jobs to be created across TVA, B&W and supplier facilities.
TVA also has added a small number of staff since selection in November. Knowing that the project has been reviewed and selected by DOE is an important step and signal to individuals making career decisions and TVA making investment decisions.
Q: What are the next steps in the process now that funding is in sight?
A: B&W and DOE are in the process of negotiating a Cooperative Agreement which will determine how much funding will be allocated to the mPower America Team. We anticipate this agreement will be signed in March 2013 and be in place for up to five years.
Q: How do you see the supply chain for SMRs developing in future?
A: Generation mPower is in the early stages of scoping out the supply chain for the mPower Plant. B&W will be providing the actual mPower reactor vessel/steam generator component, while other components will be supplied by strategic partners. Some noncritical components will be competitively bid.
Q: Will this be an all-American program or do you anticipate international collaboration?
A: We expect it to be predominantly American. B&W has an established North American supply chain for the current nuclear manufacturing operations and we expect that to continue and be somewhat expanded.
A: What is the time-frame for licensing SMRs at Clinch River and what will the reactors installed there be used for?
A: TVA anticipates submitting a license application to the NRC for up to four mPower SMRs at the Clinch River Site in the 2nd quarter of 2015. Depending upon the review time and given certain assumptions regarding long-lead procurements, site preparation and construction, it is possible that these initial SMR units will be operational in 2022.
Should TVA decide to deploy SMRs, these initial units should help TVA and the Department of Energy meet its clean energy goals and power requirements.
http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/small-modular-reactors/dan-stout-tva-technology-innovation
The Tennessee Valley Authority will pay Babcock & Wilcox, a nuclear equipment company, to complete extensive design work and apply for permission to build a new kind of nuclear plant, a “small modular reactor,” at a site in Oak Ridge, Tenn., the T.V.A. and the company announced on Wednesday.
The two entities did not disclose the value of the contract, which will be paid in part by the Energy Department under a program to encourage nuclear innovation. The announcement is a step forward in a program that advocates hope will develop a new class of nuclear plants that can be mostly built in a factory, shipped by rail or barge, deployed quickly, and sold around the world, especially in places where the power grid could not handle a big plant.
“This technology is very different,” said Joe Hoagland, a senior vice president of the T.V.A. “It has built-in safety features and security features, so you can site it at places you wouldn’t site a large reactor.”
Because the reactors are relatively small, the idea is that in an emergency they can be cooled with the natural circulation of water and heat, rather than by systems that require pumps and valves and that could be disabled by power failures or human errors. The goal for Babcock & Wilcox is a reactor that can be operated by a relatively small control room crew, perhaps two operators, and meet security requirements with fewer guards.
Christofer M. Mowry, president of Babcock & Wilcox mPower, said that existing big reactors relied on a “force on force concept,” with armed guards prepared to repel armed intruders, while the mPower concept was “force on concrete,” with a reactor that is under a concrete slab. “That’s a lot easier to defend,” he said.
The reactor is intended as a direct challenge to natural gas generators, and it is intended to share two characteristics that make gas attractive.
First, the builders say they can be built quickly and be added onto later, so there is less risk of building too much capacity or running short. Second, they are meant to do something that is difficult for existing nuclear plants but easy for gas: change power output rapidly.
Grid operators are increasingly challenged by having to integrate large amounts of power from wind farms and solar installations, which can experience surges or drops in output. Planners are looking for supply partners for those variable generators.
B&W will prepare an application to build four reactors, and the plan is to build two at the site once planned for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. Licensing can be completed under existing Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules, according to Mr. Mowry, who spoke at a Platts Nuclear Energy conference in Washington.
He said his company wanted to have the first of two units in service at Oak Ridge by 2022, an aggressive schedule that he said was “eight years and change.”
The Energy Department could match costs up to 50 percent, depending in part on how much Congress allocates. Mr. Mowry, using a standard electric industry yardstick, said the intended cost was $5,000 per kilowatt of capacity, about $900 million a unit.
No one has built reactors of that size in the United States since the 1960s, but the concept of reviving small reactors has been around in one form or another for 20 years. Four giant reactors intended to be “passively safe” are under construction but few seem likely to follow soon. Two years after the Fukushima accident, in an era of low natural gas prices, the small reactor concept is the most popular one in the field.
The company has been lining up suppliers and completing design details. But small is a relative term — the vessel is 13 feet in diameter and 83 feet high. The idea is for a 180-megawatt reactor, which is about one-sixth the size of new conventional reactors, but about the size of some old coal units now being retired. Reactors would be built in pairs or perhaps larger numbers, adding units as demand grows.
Marc Chupka, an economist and consultant at the Brattle Group who specializes in electricity, said, “one of the impediments to new nuclear is the sheer scale of the financial commitment.” Building a small reactor is an attempt to sidestep that problem, but “it’s still going to boil down to money and the relative cost of these things,” which is unknown at present since no one has built one yet.
A variety of companies have done design work on such reactors. B&W appears to be in the lead at the moment because it has the Energy Department and the T.V.A. in its camp.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/business/tva-and-babcock-wilcox-in-nuclear-reactor-deal.html?_r=0
Recent developments have focused attention on small modular reactor activity in the US. But Russia is pressing ahead with developments of its own.
As previously reported in Nuclear Energy Insider, the mPower America Team, made up of the Babcock & Wilcox Company, the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bechtel, is powering ahead with SMR commercialisation plans after winning US Department of Energy funding.
Meanwhile other American SMR developers, including Westinghouse, NuScale Power, Gen4 Energy and SMR LLC, are pressing forward with ambitious programmes of their own.
At stake, not only an important domestic market, but also the potential for exports to emerging nuclear customers in regions such as the Middle East and North Africa. But US manufacturers are not alone in the race to make SMRs a commercial reality.
Formidable competitor
Russia represents a formidable competitor, with a range of innovative SMR designs in the making. The KLT-40S, for example, is a 35MWe barge-mounted pressurised water reactor (PWR) already under construction.
Using a modified naval propulsion reactor design, the concept could be used for applications ranging from powering coastal towns to desalinating water.
A similar but larger design, also based on naval propulsion systems and for use on barges, is the VBER-300 PWR, delivering 300MWe.
Other SMRs under development include the VK-300, a 250MWe boiling water reactor; the ABV-6M, an 8.6MWe pressurised light water reactor; and the SVBR-100, which is a 101MWe lead-bismuth variant.
And last October the World Nuclear Association (WNA) reported on a USD$805m experimental lead-cooled nuclear reactor being built at the enticingly named Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC), in Tomsk.
“If successful, the small BREST-300 unit could be the first of a new wave of Russian fast reactors,” said the WNA.
“The BREST design is seen as a successor to the BN series and the 300MWe unit at the SCC could be the forerunner to a 1,200MWe version for wide deployment as a commercial power generation unit.”
Of all these variants, the KLT-40S is by far the most advanced, with some sources stating that up to seven barges could be deployed by 2015, in locations around the Arctic. The BREST concept, meanwhile, is expected to be designed by 2014 and built before 2020.
BREST, which stands for Bystry Reaktor so Svintsovym Teplonositelem or 'Fast Reactor with Lead Coolant', is seen as the front-running design for a new generation of SMRs that can be scaled up to around 1GW and deployed across the country in the 2030s, according to analysts.
It is clearly apparent the Russians are well aware of the potential market for SMRs. As World Nuclear Association analyst Jeremy Gordon puts it: “Reactors of that size are the missing link. Any other fuel you name, you can scale up all the way, but we don’t start until about 900MW.”
How do Russian designs measure up?
But how do the Russian designs measure up to those being developed in the US? One advantage of the American models is that they are based on tried-and-tested PWR technology, which makes them a safe bet for markets with previous nuclear experience.
Russian lead-cooled reactors such as the BREST design, meanwhile, involve new technology and hence represent more of a risk. “It’s that bit more racy,” says one insider.
On the other hand, buyers of Soviet reactors know the technology is backed by Russia’s entire nuclear industry, and not just a single vendor within it, which will be a powerful draw for would-be customers comfortable with the political implications of trading with Russia.
Regarding the US offering, John Goosen, vice president of Westinghouse Innovation and SMR Development, is keen to emphasise the quality aspects of ‘made in America’ products.
“While we will refrain from commenting on competitors’ designs, both foreign and US, we will say that US SMR designs will undergo the rigorous licensing process put in place by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” he says.
“Following an extensive safety review, agency approval of the designs will be formalised via a specific design certification rulemaking. This process allows the public to review and comment on the designs up front, before anyone builds a plant of this design.”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approves designs for 15 years, he adds, and once a design certification application has been submitted the NRC takes up to around 60 months to complete the review and rulemaking. It all adds up to a pretty diligent process.
In addition, Goosen points out: “Our SMR programme is backed up by Westinghouse’s 50-plus years of nuclear design and operating plant experience, and more than 6,000 reactor years of safe, commercial operations as well as a 14,000-person nuclear workforce.
“We also have more than 15 years of advanced small reactor design experience.
“Our regulatory knowledge and expertise from this experience and previously with the certification process for three advanced light water reactor designs and a licensed fuel design offer a high degree of certainty for future licensing of the SMR design.”
In the coming years when SMRs are developed and approved by the relevant regulatory authorities in respective nations, such as the US and Russia, the rest of the nuclear industry will have their own set of priorities and choices when it comes to technology, price and regulatory vigour. Only then, will the market be able to determine who has the lead on SMR commercialisation, deployment and global market dominance.
http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/small-modular-reactors/how-do-russia-and-us-measure-smrs
Q: What does the winning of this award mean in practical terms?
A: Having the additional funding from DOE will allow the mPower America Team to remain on an aggressive schedule for potential deployment by 2022 by providing an opportunity for reimbursement of some of TVA’s costs, up to 50% cost share by DOE.
This enables us to move a little faster than we would without the cost share. The FOA will provide funds in the form of reimbursement of qualified costs for the development and licensing of the B&W mPower reactor.
Q: Will mPower America be expanding its personnel/operations, and if so, how?
A: Currently the mPower America team has hundreds of engineers, technicians and operators in the U.S. working on all aspects of the project. As we continue to work aggressively toward deployment, particularly once we enter the manufacturing and construction stage, we expect a significant number of jobs to be created across TVA, B&W and supplier facilities.
TVA also has added a small number of staff since selection in November. Knowing that the project has been reviewed and selected by DOE is an important step and signal to individuals making career decisions and TVA making investment decisions.
Q: What are the next steps in the process now that funding is in sight?
A: B&W and DOE are in the process of negotiating a Cooperative Agreement which will determine how much funding will be allocated to the mPower America Team. We anticipate this agreement will be signed in March 2013 and be in place for up to five years.
Q: How do you see the supply chain for SMRs developing in future?
A: Generation mPower is in the early stages of scoping out the supply chain for the mPower Plant. B&W will be providing the actual mPower reactor vessel/steam generator component, while other components will be supplied by strategic partners. Some noncritical components will be competitively bid.
Q: Will this be an all-American program or do you anticipate international collaboration?
A: We expect it to be predominantly American. B&W has an established North American supply chain for the current nuclear manufacturing operations and we expect that to continue and be somewhat expanded.
A: What is the time-frame for licensing SMRs at Clinch River and what will the reactors installed there be used for?
A: TVA anticipates submitting a license application to the NRC for up to four mPower SMRs at the Clinch River Site in the 2nd quarter of 2015. Depending upon the review time and given certain assumptions regarding long-lead procurements, site preparation and construction, it is possible that these initial SMR units will be operational in 2022.
Should TVA decide to deploy SMRs, these initial units should help TVA and the Department of Energy meet its clean energy goals and power requirements.
http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/small-modular-reactors/dan-stout-tva-technology-innovation
The Tennessee Valley Authority will pay Babcock & Wilcox, a nuclear equipment company, to complete extensive design work and apply for permission to build a new kind of nuclear plant, a “small modular reactor,” at a site in Oak Ridge, Tenn., the T.V.A. and the company announced on Wednesday.
The two entities did not disclose the value of the contract, which will be paid in part by the Energy Department under a program to encourage nuclear innovation. The announcement is a step forward in a program that advocates hope will develop a new class of nuclear plants that can be mostly built in a factory, shipped by rail or barge, deployed quickly, and sold around the world, especially in places where the power grid could not handle a big plant.
“This technology is very different,” said Joe Hoagland, a senior vice president of the T.V.A. “It has built-in safety features and security features, so you can site it at places you wouldn’t site a large reactor.”
Because the reactors are relatively small, the idea is that in an emergency they can be cooled with the natural circulation of water and heat, rather than by systems that require pumps and valves and that could be disabled by power failures or human errors. The goal for Babcock & Wilcox is a reactor that can be operated by a relatively small control room crew, perhaps two operators, and meet security requirements with fewer guards.
Christofer M. Mowry, president of Babcock & Wilcox mPower, said that existing big reactors relied on a “force on force concept,” with armed guards prepared to repel armed intruders, while the mPower concept was “force on concrete,” with a reactor that is under a concrete slab. “That’s a lot easier to defend,” he said.
The reactor is intended as a direct challenge to natural gas generators, and it is intended to share two characteristics that make gas attractive.
First, the builders say they can be built quickly and be added onto later, so there is less risk of building too much capacity or running short. Second, they are meant to do something that is difficult for existing nuclear plants but easy for gas: change power output rapidly.
Grid operators are increasingly challenged by having to integrate large amounts of power from wind farms and solar installations, which can experience surges or drops in output. Planners are looking for supply partners for those variable generators.
B&W will prepare an application to build four reactors, and the plan is to build two at the site once planned for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. Licensing can be completed under existing Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules, according to Mr. Mowry, who spoke at a Platts Nuclear Energy conference in Washington.
He said his company wanted to have the first of two units in service at Oak Ridge by 2022, an aggressive schedule that he said was “eight years and change.”
The Energy Department could match costs up to 50 percent, depending in part on how much Congress allocates. Mr. Mowry, using a standard electric industry yardstick, said the intended cost was $5,000 per kilowatt of capacity, about $900 million a unit.
No one has built reactors of that size in the United States since the 1960s, but the concept of reviving small reactors has been around in one form or another for 20 years. Four giant reactors intended to be “passively safe” are under construction but few seem likely to follow soon. Two years after the Fukushima accident, in an era of low natural gas prices, the small reactor concept is the most popular one in the field.
The company has been lining up suppliers and completing design details. But small is a relative term — the vessel is 13 feet in diameter and 83 feet high. The idea is for a 180-megawatt reactor, which is about one-sixth the size of new conventional reactors, but about the size of some old coal units now being retired. Reactors would be built in pairs or perhaps larger numbers, adding units as demand grows.
Marc Chupka, an economist and consultant at the Brattle Group who specializes in electricity, said, “one of the impediments to new nuclear is the sheer scale of the financial commitment.” Building a small reactor is an attempt to sidestep that problem, but “it’s still going to boil down to money and the relative cost of these things,” which is unknown at present since no one has built one yet.
A variety of companies have done design work on such reactors. B&W appears to be in the lead at the moment because it has the Energy Department and the T.V.A. in its camp.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/business/tva-and-babcock-wilcox-in-nuclear-reactor-deal.html?_r=0
My post is for my entertainment, do your own DD before pushing your
buy/sell buttons
