NUCLEAR POWER TO THE RESCUE

National Center for Policy Analysis ^ | September 5, 2006 | Paul Driessen

[thackney]

A revolutionary nuclear energy technology is being designed and built in South Africa, but with suppliers and partners in many other nations, says Paul Driessen, a senior policy adviser for the Congress of Racial Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

The 165-megawatt Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (PBMR) are small and inexpensive enough to provide electrical power for emerging economies, individual cities or large industrial complexes. However, multiple units can be connected and operated from one control room, to meet the needs of large or growing communities.

Process heat from PBMR reactors can also be used directly to desalinate sea water, produce hydrogen from water, turn coal, oil shale and tar sands into liquid petroleum, and power refineries, chemical plants and tertiary recovery operations at mature oil fields.

The fuel comes in the form of baseball-sized graphite balls, each containing sugar-grain-sized particles of uranium encapsulated in high-temperature graphite and ceramic; this makes them easier and safer to handle than conventional fuel rods, says Pretoria-based nuclear physicist Dr. Kelvin Kemm.

It also reduces waste disposal problems and the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation; conventional fuel rod assemblies are removed long before complete burn-up, to avoid damage to their housings; but PBMR fuel balls are burnt to depletion.

Because they are cooled by helium, the modules can be sited anywhere, not just near bodies of water, and reactors cannot suffer meltdowns.

Since PBMRs can be built where needed, long, expensive power lines are unnecessary; moreover, the simple design permits rapid construction (in about 24 months), and the plants don't emit carbon dioxide.

PBMR technology could soon generate millions of jobs in research, design and construction industries -- and millions in industries that will prosper from having plentiful low-cost heat and electricity. It will help save habitats that are now being chopped into firewood -- and improve health and living standards for countless families, says Driessen.

[alnitak]

How many MW of commercial (not research) pebble-bed plant are expected to be built over the next decade?

[Brilliant]

"cooled by helium..."


Maybe that helium reserve is going to come in handy afterall.

[SouthernBoyupNorth]

the loony left will never buy it and the democraps have put so many restrictions on nuke reactors in our country that it takes decades to wind through the red tape to build one.

[jpsb]

cool, wonder what the down side is?

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

this alone (if it is the whole truth) makes this type of fuel system very desirable,IMO: "...conventional fuel rod assemblies are removed long before complete burn-up, to avoid damage to their housings; but PBMR fuel balls are burnt to depletion."

[doc30]

The simple fact it is nuclear energy will doom it's implementation in the U.S. The average citizen doesn't understand the advances in reactor design and fundamental shifts a pebble bed reactor has with respect to efficientcy and safety. The envirowackos will use that ignorance against the better interests of this country and continue their massive no nuclear power for any reason at any time attitude. Even if the go ahead was given, it would be tied up in state and federal courts for decades before the first shovelful of dirt is turned in the construction.

[kidd]

Possible drawbacks:
1. Since they are inherently safe, there may not be a need for a containment structure to contain the results of an accident. This may make these reactors more attractive as a terrorist target. Solution: require a missle shield.

2. There will be a greater volume of radioactive waste (not more radioactivity), simply because of the size of the pebble. Offsetting aspects of a PBMR include the ability to use non-enriched uranium, and the used pebbles are inherently safer to handle...and some argue are safe enough to dispose of as is.

[CPT Clay]

One size fits all nuclear reactor please. Just like Southwest Airlines only flys 737. If there is a problem in one, look at this problem for all.

[bobsunshine]

Here is some info on the reactors:

One of the political drawbacks is that there is no "Containment building". People get worried about leaks and terrorists attacks.

The second is that there is more spent fuel per kw then conventional nuclear plants. Thus the feeling is that would be more waste to bury.

It appears there are critics and supporters all over. There was an accident in Germany about 20 years back using a similar pebble reactor design (pebble got stuck in a cooling line). Here are some more links for those interested:

http://www.nacworldwide.com/Links/Pebble-Bed-Reactor.htm

https://www.pbmr.com/

Also, Texas will be the state with the first new nuclear plants since 1978. These are conventional ones, but it is a start:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19473

Not a single nuclear power plant has been commissioned in the United States since 1978, but that is about to change as General Electric and Hitachi have announced a joint venture to build two nuclear power plants in Texas.

The Texas project, announced in June with plants scheduled to begin operations in 2014,...

Also noteworthy is the relative lack of NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) sentiment regarding nuclear power. A June 25 Dallas Morning News house editorial in response to the announcement of the new nuclear power plants in Texas voiced just the opposite opinion.

[Ditto]

cool, wonder what the down side is?

Unknowns.

1st, these are just designs. None has ever been built. 2nd, fuel handling is extremely complex. 3rd, it's gas cooled and past experience with gas cooled reactors has not been encouraging from a reliability standpoint. There are just too many unknowns at this point to start jumping up and down.

All that said, I'd like to see research continue and see if these can be commercially viable, but I wouldn't dump all of my eggs in that basket right now. We know that light water reactors work well and we need to start building more of them now.

[RightWhale]

What is the Toshiba unit they were going to install at Galena?

[Wonder Warthog]

"Because they are cooled by helium, the modules can be sited anywhere, not just near bodies of water, and reactors cannot suffer meltdowns."

Being "cooled by helium" has zip to do with the ability to sited near or away from water. ANY nuke reactor can be sited near or away from water---all that changes is the cooling tower design.

[Wonder Warthog]

"One size fits all nuclear reactor please. Just like Southwest Airlines only flys 737. If there is a problem in one, look at this problem for all."

Westinghouse tried this back in the early 1970's. Killed by the anti-nuke hysteria.

[Centurion2000]

Whatever happened to that Mitsubishi or Toshiba nuke plant that was a self contained unit using it's own shielding (liquid lead) as the heat transformation mechanism? We need about 100 of those here now (50MW output)

[Gorjus]

cool, wonder what the down side is?

I've very much in favor of nuclear power, and have written so in this forum and others many times. However . . .

This article makes no mention at all of cost. I think that's no coincidence. Creating all those pebbles in the first place is going to be very expensive. It wouldn't be cost-competitive against rational nuclear reactor designs - but of course the libs are not rational about nuclear power.

If the economics support it, then great. If we don't do something, the costs of alternative ways to generate power will rise until this is cost-competitive, which is sort of like hitting your thumb with a hammer so you don't think about your toothache.

[thackney]

That is a different type of reactor.

Nuclear Power for Galena, Alaska
http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html

[burzum]

However, multiple units can be connected and operated from one control room, to meet the needs of large or growing communities.

As a former reactor operator, I'm not impressed with that suggestion. One control room means that the control signal wiring from multiple reactors will merge. The Browns Ferry fire of 1975 showed the idiocy of that idea.

For new reactors there should be only one control room per reactor and the number of shared vital systems should be minimized (though obviously isolatable cross connects should be allowed).

[TRY ONE]

Bump....

[Paradox]

I am very pro-nuclear, and any honest GW endorsing environmentalist should be too. The fact that they have NOT rushed headlong into supporting new Nukes and nuke technology pretty much exposes the Greens as Luddites..