The Next Industrial Revolution - Skilled Labor vs. Automation and a Blurred Future for the American Workforce

Anyone involved in manufacturing knows that automation has transformed the workplace, menial, repetitive tasks have been reduced or eliminated entirely...

A Root Cause Analysis of the Manufacturing Skills Gap

Anyone in manufacturing or heavy industry knows the statistics without having to be told. We have an aging workforce with little or no new talent entering...

The Quiet Rise of Poland as a Manufacturing Powerhouse

This is an underdog story, but also an example of how former Soviet Bloc countries have benefited from inclusion into the EU. Poland’s history dates back over 1000 years...

A Global View of the Steel Industry, Asia, Europe, and the USA

Steel is often considered the backbone of modern society; its versatility has allowed it to become one of the most widely used and most recycled materials. The production of this highly prized commodity...

The State of Advanced Lubricants

If you think of advanced lubricants as something required to pass your ISO audit, then you’re missing out on some pretty amazing technology. Unless your shop’s rotating masses...

Friday, September 23, 2016

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/