An Energy Industry Game Changer, or Wishful Thinking?

By Frank Rovella
Lockheed Martin recently announced that they are moving forward with the development of a new type of fusion reactor. If you follow the industry, you’ll know that there are fusion research projects underway, across the globe. Most are small scale with limited budgets however; others involve some real heavyweights with vast resources and government sponsorship. They include MIT, Sandia National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the ITER consortium in France, and many more. When you’re talking about developing an alternative to fossil fuels, environmentalists will insist that it’s all about CO2 emissions though they are insignificant in the USA due to the EPA. Ultimately, what is driving the fusion train is efficiency. When you’re talking power generation, it’s all about heating steam to turn a turbine, to turn a generator. At the end of the day, it’s about BTUs, and whoever can put the least in and get the most out, wins.

Lockheed Martin CFR

The concept of fusion has been around since the 1920s; with the promise of a clean and inexpensive method to produce almost limitless amounts of electricity. It has become for the energy industry a quest for the Holy Grail. Apart from the obvious, understanding why development is so compelling for countless investors and governments, it’s necessary to look at what our current state of power generation requires to survive.

East River Generating Station NYC

Most people will agree that the current methods of power generation are untenable; their supply chains are complex, far-reaching, and can be disrupted by either natural events or legislation. How tied we are to them cannot be understated, for example; 30% of all power generated in the US is from natural gas, 37% from coal, 19% from nuclear, and the remaining from a combination of renewables.

The lion's share, natural gas, and coal require mining and extraction, and lots of it. The US coal industry alone represents over 250,000 jobs while the booming natural gas industry includes over 570,000 jobs and rising. That’s a big footprint, and it’s still not enough, in the US and across the globe capacity is being outstripped by demand, utilities are scrambling to get new facilities online, but it’s all reiterations of old technology.  It’s not hard to make a case for fusion, and quite obvious why so many people and governments think fusion is the future.  This is reflected in the scale of investment in technology that is still considered by some to be a generation away. Efforts currently underway represent billions of dollars, the largest of which is the ITER in France. This project includes 35 countries; its developers estimate that it will have a power output of only 500 MW when completed, which is expected by 2019, with full power output expected between 2020-2040. Its sheer size is unprecedented, the ITER covers 104 acres in France, and its Tokamak containment system will weigh 23,000 tons. As it is a research project, it is not without problems. The ITER has been plagued with delays and cost overruns, in fact, once finished it will have a total cost in excess of $50 billion, ten times what was originally planned.

Inside the ITER Tokamak Reactor

ITER in Southern France

ITER is an extreme example, but others are no less complex, which is what makes Lockheed Martin’s entry into the fusion arena so interesting. Their first unit will be called the “Compact Fusion Reactor” (CFR). It will be approximately the size of a jet engine. Compact means it will cost less and take less time to test and develop. That’s pretty good for starters; it will also produce enough BTUs to generate upwards of 100 MW of power while using only 44 lbs. (20 Kg) of fuel annually. To put that into perspective, a truck-size power plant generating enough electricity for 80,000 homes, so what’s not to love? Of course, there are a lot of skeptics; myself included, and for good reason, just like my mother told me, “if it sounds too good to be true, usually is.”

Over the past 20 years, there has been a lot of new technology hitting the mainstream, especially in the area of alternative energy. Getting grants and investments for development means you have to exhibit or project progress, which needs to be quantified in the most persuasive manner possible.

Many have written that the CFR is just that, a vehicle to crank up Lockheed Martin stock. It’s also hard to believe that with all the research going on all over the world that a relatively unknown and new group can start from scratch and have a working model in 10 years.

Let’s just say for a minute that I drop my Yankee skepticism and look at the other side of the coin. Very few details have been released about this project, which helps to fuel the widespread disbelief. One thing to consider is that this project is under the Skunk Works umbrella, and they have a pretty good track record when it comes to keeping secrets. Moreover, the original intent for this was for aerospace applications, in particular, the space program. Fortunately, it just happens to be scalable, and could also find a home in aircraft, commercial shipping, naval applications, as well as general power generation.

So why are so many other projects struggling while the CFR seems to speed past the field?  It begins with the programs director Thomas McGuire, in 2000 as a grad student at MIT McGuire was tasked with finding a way to get to Mars quickly, fusion was the obvious choice. He began to research the various fusion technologies under development.  Through his research, Dr. McGuire claims that by combining key features he and his team have been able to answer many of the problems that have beset other projects. As a result, they have developed something he says is totally new.

To understand how new, we’ll have to look at current fusion technology, keep in mind that the entire fusion process relies on containing plasma and harvesting the heat to make steam. The plasma from a fusion reaction is really hot, hundreds of millions of degrees. Right now, you may be able to see the most well-known fusion reactor, the sun.

The first major hurdle is to get a fusion reaction started; there are a number of methods but for the sake of brevity, I’ll focus on containing the resultant plasma. The most studied and developed method is magnetic containment. This method has shown the most promise, it includes the previously mentioned Tokamak and over 170 other fusion reactor projects currently under development.

In magnetic containment, the plasma is contained in a ring or donut-shaped vacuum vessel that is maintained by external pumps.  The magnetic containment field consists of two sets of coil systems, toroidal and poloidal; they create vertical and horizontal directional fields. Developing these systems into a practical method has been a monumental task. And this is just one type of containment, other methods include Stellarator, Levitated Dipole Experiment (LDX), Magnetic Mirror, and many more.  However, magnetic containment is only one grouping; there is also Magnetic Pinches, Inertial Electrostatic Confinement, Magnetized Target Fusion, Beam fusion, Bubble Fusion, and the hypothetical Cold Fusion.  The problem with the Tokamak and other methods of magnetic containment is the massive cost and extreme complexity of the system. In this, the CFR uses a radically different approach, instead of using containment in a ring configuration; it creates it within a chamber.  McGuire explains that the Tokamak is like a bike tire expanding into air while the CFR is more like a tube that expands into an ever-stronger wall. The magnetic field created in the CFR is regulated by a self-tuning feedback mechanism. This means that the farther out into the chamber the plasma goes; the stronger the magnetic field becomes to contain it.

The Lockheed Martin CFR

If the Skunk Works team can pull this off power generation as we know it, and a large part of the world's economy will change forever. Countries that lack natural resources will no longer be at the mercy of outside sources. Certainly, the change to come to coal and natural gas extraction will be drastic. Wrangling over pipelines and power plant locations will mostly be a thing of the past. For smaller economies and developing nations, it will mean a level playing field and a better standard of life for everyone.

Like it or not, we are inexorably reliant on electricity, it powers our economies, livelihoods, and is the backbone of the modern world.  Fusion power will eventually become a reality whether it’s the CFR the Tokamak or some yet unknown method is anyone’s guess. However, without some form of improvement for power generation, we can be assured that our society will stagnate. Fusion isn’t just about cheaper cleaner power, its about the future.

Read More

Nuclear Power Reboot

By Frank Rovella

When it comes to power generation, many people take for granted that our entire way of life depends on it. Every industry, every business, every home relies on electricity to survive. Fluctuations in the price of natural gas and coal can make or break entire economies. Recent advancements in fracking and deepwater drilling have introduced new and unprecedented volatility into the energy industry. While it has breathed new life into natural gas (NG) based power generation, it has also driven old king coal into a supporting role.  As the chart below indicates, NG and coal are projected to be neck and neck at around 33% each with the remaining third split between nuclear, hydro, and renewables.

However, through all this nuclear power has remained relatively stable. This is due in part to the cost of the technology and the fear factor, which is part and parcel to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) heavy-handed regulatory arm. With accidents like Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island still fresh in the public consciousness, it's hard to argue for less regulation; in fact, the NRC has only approved one new plant in the last 35 years.

Homer Simpson stereotypes aside, there is a reason the US hasn't had a nuclear accident in over 36 years (Three Mile Island). Because of the NRC, American nuclear plants run with military precision, the level of redundancies and safety features make them incredibly safe but painfully expensive to build and operate.

"Nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of power generation, but current technology requires regulation that makes it prohibitively expensive."

As with any major power generation technology, the objective is to make heat, to make steam, to turn a turbine. Unlike other conventional fossil fuel forms of generation, in a nuclear reactor there is no combustion, whether it's a pressurized water reactor or a boiling water reactor, also known as a light water reactor, the heat is generated from a fission reaction. Fission is generated through the use of enriched uranium, the mining and enriching of which is a complex and very expensive process. Additionally, refueling is also very expensive and disruptive to power operations. There are currently 42 or so nuclear plants in the USA averaging around 1900 megawatts each, most with two reactors. The typical reactor is on an 18 to 24-month cycle, with outages lasting over a month and requiring thousands of contracted workers. This cost becomes compounded with the revenue lost by losing half of a plant's output for over a month. These power plants provide baseload power; lost production has to come from other sources and is usually purchased from nearby states or utilities.

Apart from the cost and complexity of operation, the public perception of nuclear plants being dangerous has greatly hindered expansion. When you look at worst-case scenarios like Chernobyl, it's not hard not to have at least some trepidation towards the technology.

Of course, the NRC has assured us that an accident of that magnitude could not happen in the US, but even with the best safety record, there is still a risk. Fukushima, for example, was said to be designed to withstand the seismic conditions of the region but failed brilliantly when faced with them.  The Fukushima accident seemed to be the final nail in the coffin of the nuclear industry. The combination of cost and bad press, pretty much shut down any hope of new plants coming online.

"The problem with solid fuel nuclear technology is the fact that every reactor has the potential to meltdown."

Even with all of these drawbacks, nuclear power is still getting a lot of R&D dollars. The demand for clean non-fossil fuel energy is growing. Even without the green groundswell, developing new and cleaner nuclear technology is imperative because the global energy demand is far outstripping production. A recent report by the International Energy Agency(IEA) indicated that currently, 20% of the world population does not have access to electricity that is 1.4 billion people. And with overall demand expected to rise 93% over the next 25 years, every option must be explored.

Fortunately, there is a slew of next-generation nuclear technology in the pipeline that may change the industry's fortunes. There are currently almost 50 firms in North America developing new technology for the nuclear industry; this represents over $1.3 billion in investment capital. That's big money for any new technology, and it's all coming from individual investors, major venture capital funds, and even people like Bill Gates.

This resurgence is focused around two reactor types that hold a great deal of promise; they are molten salt and traveling wave. Both types have been around since the 1950s but have taken a back seat to current reactor design. What is really important to understand these new technologies is that they are both meltdown proof.

Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) include a number of reactor types. However, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR), are currently getting the most attention.  The advantage that MSRs like LFTR offer is that unlike standard reactors that use solid fuel, MSRs use liquid fuel in the form of molten salts such as fluoride or chloride salts that contain dissolved fissile material, these fluids also facilitate cooling. Unlike standard solid fuel reactors, refueling does not require shutting down the plant. Also, using a liquid fuel means that there are no fuel assemblies to be built; this includes the fuel pellets, core support structure, cladding tubes, and a lot of other very expensive components and hardware. However there are also disadvantages, MSRs also have the potential to provide weapons-grade uranium and because of the use of high-temperature salts, there is a concern with corrosion. Maintenance is also difficult because of the high levels of radiation throughout the fluid system.  Additionally, in the case of a lengthy shut down, many parts of the systems will require heating so that the salts do not solidify. As the diagram indicates, the MSR liquid system is extensive, and though safer and more efficient than solid fuel reactors, construction costs would likely be very high for large-scale plants.

Traveling Wave Reactors (TWR) seem more like science fiction. If this technology is fully developed it will certainly change the way nuclear power is perceived and used.  A traveling wave reactor needs only a very small amount of enriched uranium 235 to operate, this is where it gets interesting; during normal core operations, additional fuel is slowly created from depleted uranium. It has been theorized that a traveling wave reactor could run for several hundred years or more between refueling, however, realistically speaking scheduled maintenance would more likely be in the 40-year range. With the minimal need for enriched fuel, virtually no refueling, no waste to dispose of, and no potential for weaponization, TWRs could make Ralph Nader blush. As the image below highlights, the design consists of six major components.

1. The Reactor Head is the only above-ground component and acts as a safety containment structure in case radiation is released.
2. Below the reactor head is the Guard Vessel, which holds the reactor core that is submerged in liquid sodium. The liquid sodium provides both heat transfer and reactor cooling.
3. As with any reactor, the core is at the heart of the unit and is where nonfissile materials convert to fissile materials to maintain the reaction.
4. Since the reaction process is very slow, Control Rods are used to accelerate the reaction, while Safety Rods are used to slow the reaction; both are mechanically inserted into the core when required.
5. Pumps are used to move the 550°C/1022°F liquid sodium through the core and to heat liquid sodium in a secondary circulation system.
6. The Secondary Circulation System flows through a heat exchanger that in turn creates steam to turn turbines to generate power.
   

Both of these technologies hold great promise and can solve or play a major role in the growing worldwide demand for electricity. However, they will have to overcome the negative public opinion that solid fuel reactor technology has created.

The increase in development activity around these and other reactor designs have prompted The Department of Energy (DOE) to enact a program designed to help fledgling companies to finance and proliferate new and safer reactor design. One such program called "GAIN" gives developers access to DOE labs and includes $12.5 billion for loan guarantees that will help with NRC licensing and certification.

The loan guarantees will certainly help, but it's only a band-aid for the cumbersome NRC licensing and certification process. There is certainly radiation involved in each design, but apart from that this technology has very little in common with solid-fuel technology.

The whole point of these new designs is that they don't suffer from the same potential for catastrophic failure, waste disposal, and massive costs. 

Unless the NRC changes its tune, the current decade long and painfully expensive approval process will decimate the funding and momentum of most startups. This is a perfect example of regulation hindering innovation that would provide global benefits.

More Info:

Traveling Wave Reactors (TWR)

https://whatisnuclear.com/reactors/twr.html

http://terrapower.com/pages/technology

Molten Salt Reactors

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Molten-Salt-Reactors/

Read More

The Steel Industry Meets Nanotechnology

How a new Nano-Manufacturing process is making steel 10x stronger

By Frank Rovella

Seattle-based Modumetal is in the early phases of testing a new type of nanolamination coating process that has the potential to reshape the metal manufacturing industry. By creating multiple discrete layers only nanometers thick they are able to impart characteristics such as high strength and corrosion resistance and do it very economically. Until now, the only way to get these qualities was through the use of high-strength alloys or with methods such as heat treating, ion implantation, or a number of plating and coating processes. All of these can be very cost-effective in limited quantities but, for industries that consume large amounts of steel such as petro-chem, oil & gas, and construction there is no low-cost solution.

The concept of creating laminations using nanolayers is not new; however, Modumetal’s application method is. Previously, nanolaminates could only be created via a vapor deposition process the problem is that it’s expensive and not easily scalable. Modumetal’s process takes a markedly different approach; though simple in nature, its success hinges on precise chemistry and process parameters.  It’s based on hydrolysis, similar to the electroplating process, and utilizes a submersion bath. But, unlike electroplating, it relies on hyper exact amounts of electrical current applied at specific intervals. The bath contains predetermined types of metal ions that allow for the creation of distinct alloys; this means that each layer can be composed of a different material.  Multiple layers may be applied to total up to one centimeter thick. This flexibility in layer composition allows for the engineering of custom nanolaminations that can provide whatever characteristics the application requires.

To understand how high strength and corrosion resistance can be applied to a metal with what is essentially a coating, we need to consider scale. For example, electroplated layer thicknesses typically run between 5 to 100 microns, 1 micron (µ) = 0.00003937 inches, while 1 nanometer (nm) = 0.000000039 inches. This is on the atomic scale; to put that into perspective, 0.1 nm is the diameter of a helium atom.  As the image below highlights, at the nanoscale, our understanding of surface profile changes. There is far more surface area to work with, which means greater adhesion can be achieved. At this scale, the metal ions become a physical part of the substrate. The ability to dial in an alloy combination to address a specific corrosion requirement outside of a steel mill is unprecedented, but the main component that makes this technology so attractive is strength.



Carbon steel surface taken through an electron microscope, the actual
size is 10 micrometers (µm) across that is equal to 10,000 nanometers.

Tensile strength is a material’s ability to withstand pressure before failing, and failing begins with cracking. To demonstrate how nanolaminations can make steel 10 times stronger, think about a sheet of plywood; this is the most common example of a lamination.  Plywood contains multiple layers of materials with different strength characteristics and varying grain structures—the more layers added the greater the strength. The strength is further enhanced when the lamination is nailed or glued into place. Now imagine a cross-section of structural steel with all of its surfaces encapsulated in layers of nanometer-thick superalloys of varying compositions, bonded to the substrate at the atomic level. The advantages are obvious. 

Stress cracking in a cross-section of stainless steel pipe.

The potential this has for large-scale applications such as those found in oil & gas and the construction industries could be a game-changer. But to gain a foothold in manufacturing, a lot more data will be needed, and many questions will need to be answered. Beginning with the application process, will it be better suited for pre or post-treatment? Will ductility be affected, how will it react to rolling or stamping, and what about welding?  The ability to weld treated metals could be one of the key questions; this is essentially a coating—when it’s welded what happens at the joints? Even coatings a centimeter thick will be burned through, leaving a seam of bare substrate. However, these issues may already be moot points, as Modumetal is currently ramping up its production facility in Washington State. Of course, before this resembles anything close to wide-scale adoption, all of the standard bodies including ASTM, API, ASTM, and CEN will have to give it their blessing, and that certainly won’t happen overnight.   

Read More