Small modular reactor design could be a SUPERSTAR

Though most of today's nuclear reactors are cooled by water, we've long known that there are alternatives; in fact, the world's first nuclear-powered electricity in 1951 came from a reactor cooled by sodium. Reactors cooled by liquid metals such as sodium or lead have a unique set of abilities that may again make them significant players in the nuclear industry.

At the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory, a team led by senior nuclear engineer James Sienicki has designed a new small reactor cooled by lead—the Sustainable Proliferation-resistance Enhanced Refined Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor, or SUPERSTAR for short.

Small modular reactors, or SMRs, are small-scale nuclear plants that are designed to be factory-manufactured and shipped as modules to be assembled at a site. They can be designed to operate without refueling for 15 to 30 years. The concept offers promising answers to many questions about nuclear power—including proliferation, waste, safety, and start-up costs.

SUPERSTAR is an example of a so-called "fast reactor," a type fundamentally different from the light-water reactors common today. Light-water reactors use water both as a coolant and as a moderator to slow down neutrons created in the fuel as it fissions. Instead, fast reactors use materials that don't slow down neutrons—often a liquid metal, such as sodium or lead.

Like all new generations of reactors, SUPERSTAR has "passive" safety systems—backup safety measures that kick in automatically, without human intervention, in case of accidents. For example, all reactors have control rods incorporating substances that absorb neutrons and stop nuclear chain reactions. SUPERSTAR's rods can be suspended above the reactor core held in place by electricity. If the plant loses power, the control rods will automatically drop into the core and stop the reaction.

In addition, SUPERSTAR's lead coolant is circulated around the core by a process called natural circulation. While existing plants use electrically-driven pumps to keep the water moving, SUPERSTAR exploits a law of physics to move the coolant.

"In any closed loop, with heat at the bottom and cooling on top, a flow will develop, with the heated stream rising to the top and cooled stream going down," explained Anton Moisseytsev, an Argonne nuclear engineer also working on the reactor design. "SUPERSTAR design takes advantage of this feature its lead coolant is circulated solely by natural circulation, with no pumps needed. And of course, having no pumps means no pump failures."

This means that if the plant loses power, as happened at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, the reactor does not need electricity to cool the core after shutdown.

Although the SMR concept has been around for decades, the idea has gained greater traction in recent years. Both President Obama and U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu have extolled the virtues of SMRs; Secretary Chu said their development could give American manufacturers a "key competitive edge."

For example, the smaller size of SMRs gives them greater flexibility. "A small grid in a developing nation or a rural area may not need the 1,000 megawatts that a full-size reactor produces," Sienicki said. "In addition, SUPERSTAR can adjust its own power output according to demand from the grid."

Sienicki and his colleagues designed the reactor so that it could be shipped, disassembled, on a train. SMRs have been pinpointed for use in developing nations or outlying areas; these plants could be dropped off at a site and easily installed.

Because the plant runs for decades on a single installment of fuel—and operators need never directly interact with the fuel, which is sealed in the core—SMRs also address proliferation concerns. Reducing access to the fuel lowers all the risks associated with creating and changing fuel, such as uranium enrichment technology.

Finally, SMRs could also offer cost benefits. After major cost overruns on plants in the 1980s, investors have been wary of financing new nuclear plants. Small modular reactors reduce the risk in investing in new plants; the start-up cost would be less than those for full-size reactors. In addition, the parts for the reactors could be manufactured in assembly lines at factories, further diminishing the cost

If you are paying attention, at one point in video #3 @ 7:20, an area in the pool is boiling. Besides in some shots steam rising from the reactor location in the background and debris strewn everywhere.

The #4 reactor was not in use at the time of the great quake and had its lid off for a shroud replacement and supposedly all reactor core assemblies are in with the other spent fuels rods. About 1331 fuel assemblies in the #4 SFP. The pool was only designed for half that amount of weight.

http://enenews.com/missing-fuel-assembly-racks-spent-fuel-pool-4-video

"If you are paying attention, at one point in video #3 @ 7:20, an area in the pool is boiling. Besides in some shots steam rising from the reactor location in the background and debris strewn everywhere."

There is no video in the link I asked about. It's a .PDF file. Or are you one of those jerks who posts random comments to anyone unlucky enough to ask you a question??

If there is a point you're trying to make, say so, specifically. I'm not going to indulge in consulting either a Ouija board or Magic 8-ball trying to figure it out.

If you can’t keep up with your own posts then don’t post.

Basic BWR reactors are a failure on many fronts. Costs. Nuclear wastes. Environmental and human risks.

But you are set to continue down the path of fission destruction with next generation reactors either for power or heat generation. Never mind the experiments in 1st generation and 2nd generation and 3rd generation and so on, designs are all failures mainly due to costs of nuclear waste storage but you are all ready for the compact version of fission and ignoring the results of large output fission reactors.

Some people never learn.

Either you have a small reactor and refuel it yearly or use more powerful fuels to extend the refueling time but what you end up with is dealing in plutonium spread out all over the world.

Britain already has more plutonium than it knows what to do with along with other nuclear countries. Must be creating a new market to unload the stuff in someone’s backyard while ignoring the consequences.

Japan says the 3 blown nuclear units at Fukushima are in cold shutdown but have no idea where the (3) cores are and they are certainly not contained. The experiment continues...

"If you can’t keep up with your own posts then don’t post."

I keep up with my posts just fine....it's yours that make no sense. You post a PDF file from www.platt.com which covers probably a dozen different topics. I ask you which one of that multitude of subjects you're trying to address, and you refer to a video totally unrelated to the PDF. Random nuttiness. Unfortunately, I've dealt with your type before..... rational thought and conversation isn't possible. Soooo......goodbye.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.