Nuclear future on a smaller scale
By KEITH SCHNEIDER | Los Angeles Times (TNS) | Published: February 3, 2018
CORVALLIS, Ore. — It’s not quite Stagg Field, the University of Chicago site of the first nuclear chain reaction in 1942. But perched in what looks like a giant birdcage at Oregon State University is a steel cylinder nearly 20 feet tall, thick as a redwood, bristling with gauges and wrapped in a tangle of wires. Nearby, in a windowless control room, two dozen digital displays surround a central operations bench.
Jose Reyes, the founder of NuScale Power, showed off the facilities like an owner appraising his barn of prize thoroughbreds. “Year by year we are getting closer to our goal,” he said.
If Reyes and other experts are right, his steel cylinder — a one-third scale model of the reactor his company hopes to build — will lead a revival of commercial nuclear power by overcoming two problems that have crippled the industry: escalating costs and the risk of devastating accidents.
NuScale’s 50-megawatt reactor is tiny compared with conventional reactors and would generate a twentieth of the electricity. But because it is small, it would contain much less fuel and much less energy — and therefore could be operated with much less risk. It is designed as a modular unit that could be built in a factory, shipped by truck and put in place.
Other companies also are intent on gaining a place in the nuclear sector amid fresh interest in design and development of commercial reactors. Nine projects are underway in California, 47 more in 19 other states, and five in Canada, according to the Third Way think tank in Washington. Several are focused on small reactors.
In January, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled that the design of the NuScale reactor — which relies on air circulation for cooling — is so safe that it does not need the emergency pumps and backup electrical systems required of big conventional reactors. The decision brings NuScale closer than any company in decades to gaining a license to operate an entirely new reactor design in the U.S. for commercial use.
“The NuScale reactor has crossed a very important safety threshold,” said Todd Allen, professor of nuclear engineering at University of Wisconsin. “It’s an inflection point for advanced reactor designs. The question we can’t answer yet is, will they make it work in the market?”
With more than $700 million in government and private investment, Reyes’ company already has a customer: A consortium of municipal utilities in six Western states hopes to string 12 of the reactors together in Idaho to create a 600-megawatt power plant for the bargain price — compared with other nuclear facilities — of $2.85 billion.
Even some environmental groups that once opposed nuclear power are willing to consider it now as a way of weaning off fossil fuels to combat global warming.
“The stars may be aligning for licensing small modular reactors,” said Matthew McKinzie, a physicist and director of the Nuclear Program in the Washington office of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Several prominent physicists, however, expressed deep skepticism about the NuScale reactor’s economic viability, especially with solar power, wind farms and other renewable energy sources steadily getting less expensive.
“It takes steel and concrete and other materials to build these things,” said Gregory Jaczko, a physicist and former NRC chairman. “You’re not going to have better economics with small reactors as compared to big ones. They’re going in the wrong direction. Absolutely nobody out there is going to buy these small reactors.”
And small plants won’t solve perhaps the biggest problem with nuclear power: what to do with the radioactive waste. NuScale plans to store it onsite in concrete casks — “until the government decides what to do with it,” Reyes said.
Nuclear power now supplies 20 percent of U.S. electricity. But the number of reactors is on the decline, from a peak of 104 in 2012 to 99 today, with seven more scheduled for decommissioning in the next seven years.
In the latest blow to the industry, Westinghouse, the premier commercial nuclear designer, went bankrupt last year, and the two 1,100-megawatt reactors it was building in South Carolina were abandoned after completion costs more than doubled to $25 billion and the construction schedule was extended by a decade.
To Reyes, those difficulties are evidence that nuclear power needs to move in a new direction.
“The design for this reactor is so different,” said Reyes, 62. “There is so much that is automated. It is so much simpler in terms of safety. I eliminated a lot of equipment. Yet we can demonstrate a much higher level of safety.”
He has been fascinated by atomic energy since he was growing up in New Jersey in the 1960s, when nuclear plants were just starting to be built. U.S. plans for a nuclear future atomized in a cloud of radioactive gas on March 28, 1979, with the meltdown at Three Mile Island, an accident that Reyes helped investigate as a research engineer at the NRC.
The disaster didn’t shake his commitment to nuclear power, but made clear that safety had to be the priority. He spent a decade at the agency before leaving in 1987 for Oregon State, where he rose to head the nuclear engineering department.
In 2000, Reyes was awarded a U.S. Department of Energy grant to design his reactor. Seven years later he launched NuScale, which has grown to 450 employees.
The Energy Department has invested $226 million in NuScale since 2013. Karla Olsen, a spokeswoman for the department’s Office of Nuclear Energy, praised the reactor’s “innovative design” and said the government was encouraged by the company’s progress.
The company’s biggest supporter is Texas-based Fluor Corp., which has bet $416 million since 2011 that the reactor will be the core of a nuclear construction business to power industrial installations, military bases and remote communities.
Critics note that although construction costs are projected to be far lower than for traditional nuclear plants, they are still far higher than for other kinds of power.
Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems — the consortium of Western utilities that wants to build a 600-megawatt plant in Idaho — plans to spend roughly $5 million for each mega-watt. A government study last year found that figure is $1.1 million for a natural gas plant and $2.2 million for a solar plant.
Douglas Hunter, the utility’s chief executive, said the savings would come on the operations side. At 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, the plant would be cheaper to run than the utility’s wind farms in Idaho and Wyoming, and on par with its natural-gas-fired plant in Utah.
“We wanted to develop an option for nongreenhouse reliable generation,” Hunter said. “This was the only viable path to get there.”
The facility would be built by Fluor at Idaho National Laboratory, a federal nuclear reactor testing ground near Idaho Falls. If all goes as planned, it would start up in 2027.
©2018 Los Angeles Times
Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.