DOCSLIB.ORG

The Potential Impact of Molten Salt Reactors on the UK Electricity Grid

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Potential Impact of Molten Salt Reactors on the UK Electricity Grid The Potential Impact of Molten Salt Reactors on the UK Electricity Grid Charles Denbowa,b, Niccolo` Le Bruna, Niall Mac Dowella, Nilay Shaha, Christos N. Markidesa aDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, SW7 2AZ bDepartment of Materials, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, SW7 2AZ Abstract The UK electricity grid is expected to supply a growing electricity demand and also to cope with electricity generation variability as the country pursues a low-carbon future. Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) could offer a solution to meet this demand thanks to their estimated low capital costs, low operational risk, and promise of reliably dispatchable low-carbon electricity. In the published literature, there is little emphasis placed on estimating or modelling the future impact of MSRs on electricity grids. Previous modelling efforts were limited to quantifying the value of renewable energy sources, energy storage and carbon capture technologies. To date, no study has assessed or modelled MSRs as a competing power generation source for meeting decarbonization targets. Given this gap, the main objective of this paper is to explore the cost benefits for policy makers, consumers and investors when MSRs are deployed between 2020 and 2050 for electricity generation in the UK. This paper presents results from electricity systems optimization (ESO) modelling of the costs associated with the deployment of 1350 MWe MSRs, from 2025 onwards to 2050, and compares this against a UK grid with no MSR deployment. Results illustrate a minimum economic benefit of £1.25 billion for every reactor installed over this time period. Additionally, an investment benefit occurs for a fleet of these reactors which have a combined net present value (NPV) of £22 billion in 2050 with a payback period of 23 years if electricity is sold competitively to consumers at a price of £60/MWh. Keywords: Energy system modelling, Nuclear energy, Power generation, Molten salt reactor Nomenclature CCS - Carbon Capture and Storage CfD - Contract for Difference ESO - Electricity systems optimization Gen-III+ - Generation three plus Gen-IV - Generation four GIF - Gen-IV International Forum GW - Gigawatts IMSR - Integrated Molten Salt Reactor LCOE - Levelized Cost of Electricity MSR - Molten salt reactor MSRE - Molten Salt Reactor Experiment MWe - Megawatts equivalent NPV - Net Present Value ORNL - OakRidge National Laboratory PV - Photo-voltaic RE - Renewable Energy R&D - Research and Development SSR - Stable Salt Reactor UK - United Kingdom USDOE - United States Department of Energy 232Th - Thorium 232 radioisotope 233U - Uranium 233 radioisotope Preprint submitted to Journal of Cleaner Production May 4, 2020 1. Introduction The UK electricity grid supply is predicted to exhibit growth in response to an increasing electricity demand from home heating electrification and zero emissions vehicles (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2010). According to Gross and Heptonstall(2008), the grid will have to be resilient to the intermittency of low carbon power sources as the country proceeds to meet its future environmental commitments. As a result, the UK Parliament(2014c) has legislated to align with this forecast, by attempting to incentivize renewable energy (RE) deployment for sustained power sector decarbonization while creating a space for more reliable and reasonably priced power for consumers (UK Parliament, 2014a,b). The identification of the best remaining low carbon technology mixture, amidst the growing penetration of non-dispatchable RE is, however, still being debated. Attempts to rapidly deploy technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Gen-III+ nuclear power plants have been scrutinized on cost by both the House of Commons(2017) and academics (Portugal-Pereira et al., 2018) respectively. This has lead to these technologically specific projects being plagued by investment uncertainty, questioning their cost-competitiveness within a liberalized electricity marketplace locally (National Audit Office, 2017) and globally (MIT Energy Initiative, 2018). A suggested technological solution to this energy trilemma (security, cost and sustainability) could be to commercialize and deploy Gen-IV nuclear reactor systems, specifically MSRs. By utilizing a molten salt as a heat transfer fluid, MSRs operate at near-ambient pressure and, by reducing the cost of piping and equipment, have a lower estimated capital costs. The lower pressure, in addition with other key technological aspect, such as the ability to dissolve the fuel directly into the heat transfer fluid, makes the reactor intrinsically safer and reduce the operational risk Zheng et al.(2018). Other technological aspects of MSRs also allows for a reliable and flexible low-carbon electricity supply (Richards et al., 2017). Evidence of a renewed interest in this 1960s technology (Rosenthal et al., 1970) has been recently observed based on the spike of new global MSR start-ups within a short time span. The focus of these companies has mainly been on refining elements of early reactor development in the UK (Griffiths et al., 2015), with additional focus to address regulatory concerns and attract public-private investment for their designs (Energy Options Network, 2017). However, little emphasis has been placed on estimating the future impact of these MSR designs on electricity grids. Additionally, prototype reactor size selection criterion has been more aligned with the capabilities of future demonstration plants and less aligned with the potential return on investment achievable within the electricity market. One way to estimate this impact and determine the most promising reactor size is through ESO modelling according to Pfen- ninger et al.(2014). While most model applications have looked at quantifying the value of RE generation, energy storage and carbon capture technology on the future grid, no model application to date has been done using MSRs as a power generation source. This modelling gap application can be filled by exploring the impact of a deployment of this new nuclear technology on the grid thereby adding to the debate as to whether MSRs can be a suitable value proposition for the UK electricity grid. An understanding of the ongoing UK energy debate and resulting government policy is fundamental in estimating accurately the future requirements from the grid. Firstly, for energy policy-makers it will be useful to illustrate the potential and limitations of deployment of MSR nuclear technology alongside other competing low-carbon technology. Determination of whether MSRs are inclusive in the least cost option can guide policy around the minimum investments needed for MSR technology for capacity expansion planning. Secondly, for MSR start-ups it could identify the reactor size with the highest probability of success in the UK electricity market, potentially helping to reduce engineering costs by aligning demonstration and commercial reactor design sizes. Lastly, for private investors it can reveal the potential viability of this technology for power production and help to balance the investment risk/reward around new nuclear power generation. 2. The UK energy debate An understanding of the ongoing UK energy debate and resulting government policy is fundamental in estimating accurately the future requirements from the grid. Current UK energy policy centres around curbing emissions (Department of Business Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2018) and assuring energy security (Department of Trade and Industry, 2007) by strategically reducing domestic Greenhouse Gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 (UK Parliament, 2008). Their energy debate has evolved to focus on how these objectives can reasonably be achieved within the various sectors of its economy. One sector deemed critical to securing a low-carbon energy future is the power generation sector. 2.1. Power generation sector Determining the cost-effective low-carbon electricity supply mixture for existing and future electricity demand remains an open question (Spataru et al., 2015). The UK government, alongside numerous academic institutions, has attempted to explore the impact of power generation from several technologies through modelling several sustainable energy scenarios from the late 2000s (MacKay, 2009) up to recently (Markides, 2013). Across the breadth of scenarios modelled several shared insights have been identified. The first insight highlights the need for the UK’s electricity supply to be decarbonized as its capacity may double (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011). This growth in capacity directly relates to an anticipated future demand 2 from electrified road transport, residential/commercial heating and industry (Odenberger and Johnsson, 2007). The second insight observed was the increased challenge of balancing the electricity grid due to the variability in output from increased RE deployment (Barton et al., 2017; Gross and Heptonstall, 2008). That challenge is expected to grow more complex unless ambitious societal and technological energy efficiency is implemented to flatten daily 24-hr demand according to Odenberger and Johnsson(2007) and the Department of Trade and Industry(2003). In summary, there is an expectation that the current electricity supply is on track to firstly grow to match the increasing demand and secondly, become more variable as the country pursues a low carbon future. 2.2. Government strategy As a part of pre-emptive climate action, the UK Parliament(2015)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Molten Salt Reactor: Sustainable and Safe Reactor for the Future?
    WIR SCHAFFEN WISSEN –HEUTE FÜR MORGEN Jiří Křepel :: MSR activity coordinator :: Paul Scherrer Institut Molten Salt Reactor: sustainable and safe reactor for the future? NES colloquium 14.09.2016 [email protected] INTRODUCTION Page 2 History of Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) Illustration, not MSR started at Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1950s • Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE)* 1960s • Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE)* 1970s • Molten Salt Breeder Reactor (MSBR)* 1970s • EIR (PSI) study (report nr. 411, 1975) fast spectrum, chlorides 1980s • Denatured Molten Salt Reactor (DMSR)* * ORNL <= <= <= Page 3 History of MSR: revival 100 90 80 1990s • Accelerator-driven transmutation 70 keff=0.95 [mA] of Nuclear Waste - ATW (LANL) 60 keff=0.97 curent 2000s • Generation IV, Amster, Sphinx, … 50 keff=0.98 40 2010s • MSFR, Mosart, … fast spectrum, fluorides Accelerator 30 keff=0.99 FHR (fluorides cooled HTR) 20 keff=0.995 2015+ • MCFR, Breed & Burn (TerraPower, PSI, …) 10 keff=0.997 WR at PSI 2.3mA 0 keff=1 fast spectrum, chlorides 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 ADS reactor power [GWth] <= <= <= Page 4 Classification of MSR MSR is a class of reactors with two groups Type of: Molten salt Application Molten salt fueled reactors cooled reactors Reactor Thermal reactors Fast reactors Fission reactors Fusion reactors Salt Fluorides Fluorides or Chlorides Fluorides Fluorides Core Graphite moderated “Empty” cylinder Graphite based fuel Blanket of the core (ZrH, H2O, D2O, Be, … (TRISO particles) (coolant and/or needs barrier) tritium production) Page 5 Anions in the salts Fluorides Chlorides 19 35 37 100% F 76% Cl + 24% Cl ] 1000 ‐ 1 [ 35Cl 37Cl 19F 0.1 100 interaction 0.01 [b] per XS 10 0.001 Total 0.0001 probabilty 1 0.00001 Capture 35Cl 37Cl 19F 0.1 0.000001 0.001 0.1 10 1000 100000 10000000 0.001 0.1 10 1000 100000 10000000 Incident neutron energy [eV] Incident neutron energy [eV] Number of collision to slow-down fast neutron (2MeV->1eV) 19F 35Cl 37Cl 142 (+big inelastic XS) 258 273 For instance: Iodine as the fission product is the next possible anion.
    [Show full text]
  • Economics and Finance of Molten Salt Reactors
    Progress in Nuclear Energy 129 (2020) 103503 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Progress in Nuclear Energy journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene Economics and finance of Molten Salt Reactors Benito Mignacca, Giorgio Locatelli * University of Leeds, School of Civil Engineering, Leeds, United Kingdom ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: There is a long-standing and growing interest in Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) mainly because of their potential Molten salt reactor advantages in terms of safety, sustainable fuel cycle, and the high melting and boiling points of salt which allow Economics operations at high temperatures and atmospheric pressure with potential merits in terms of cost. A key objective Finance of MSRs is to have a life-cycle cost advantage over other energy sources. Leveraging a systematic literature LCOE review, this paper firstly provides an overview of “what we know” about MSR economics and finance following Modularisation “ ” GEN IV reactor two main streams: scientific and industrial literature. Secondly, this paper highlights what we should know about the economics and financeof MSRs, suggesting a research agenda. The literature is very scarce and focuses on MSR overnight capital cost estimations and the comparison between MSR cost of electricity and other energy sources. Cost estimations need to be more transparent and independently assessed. Furthermore, there is no peer- reviewed literature on MSR financing, only claims from vendors. 1. Introduction - SCWR (Supercritical-Water-cooled Reactor) is a thermal/fast reactor technology cooled by supercritical water. It is considered as an The evolution of Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) is usually divided into evolution of the actual boiling water reactor because of its compa­ four generations (GIF, 2014): rable plant layout and size, same coolant and identical main appli­ cation, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Stable Salt Reactors
    Stable Salt Reactors A new platform technology in nuclear fission October 15th, 2020 Ian Scott, M.A., Ph.D., Chairman and Chief Scientist Moltex Energy Ltd 13 The Courtyard Timothy’s Bridge Road Stratford-upon-Avon Warwickshire United Kingdom CV37 9NP [email protected] www.moltexenergy.com Moltex mission • To reduce the cost of nuclear fission energy so that it economically beats burning coal and gas and the world is powered with renewables and nuclear 2 Copyright @ 2020 Moltex Energy Ltd www.moltexenergy.com The real challenge for nuclear • Nuclear energy with low enough capital and fixed operating costs to be profitable at 30-50% capacity factor in unsubsidised competition with fossil fuels • Radical innovation needed to slash costs of nuclear • SSR achieves that cost objective, comfortably, through a single minded focus on intrinsic safety and simplicity 3 Copyright @ 2020 Moltex Energy Ltd www.moltexenergy.com Two ways to use molten salt fuel Conventional MSRs Stable Salt Reactor platform Heat exchanger Reaction chamber Emergency dump tank • Intensely radioactive fuel salt pumped at • Fuel salt placed in fuel assemblies pressure round an engineered system which • New concept, patent now granted worldwide can never be approached by a human being 4 Copyright @ 2020 Moltex Energy Ltd www.moltexenergy.com Why is this a new idea? • “Static” molten salts in fuel pins Aircraft reactor experiment which led rejected by ORNL because to molten salt reactor experiment convection of fluids would be unreliable in an aircraft – but convection
    [Show full text]
  • Molten Salt Reactors
    1 Molten Salt Reactors Thomas J. Dolan, Member, IEEE Fig. 1. MSRE core. Liquid fuel flowed upwards through Abstract— Nuclear power is advancing slowly because of public channels in the graphite. [ORNL] concerns about nuclear accidents, radioactive waste, fuel supply, cost, and nuclear proliferation. The development of molten salt reactors could alleviate most of these concerns and prevent water-cooled The MSRE demonstrated that the issues of control, reactor accidents like those at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and pumping, heat removal, radioactivity containment, and Fukushima. The purpose of this article is to provide information about corrosion could be managed. Oak Ridge also designed a the potential advantages and problems of molten salt reactors. The coolants could be either fluorides or chlorides, operated above their Molten Salt Breeder Reactor (MSBR) that would produce melting temperatures, to avoid solidification, and well below their more fuel than it burned, using Flibe salt with dissolved ThF4 233 boiling temperatures, to prevent evaporation losses. “Fast” reactors use and UF4. It would have had a breeding ratio (BR) of 1.06 energetic fission neutrons, while “thermal” reactors use graphite to and a fuel doubling time of 22 years but funding was slow the neutrons down to thermal energies. We describe four reactor i types: solid fuel thermal, liquid fuel thermal, liquid fuel fast, and terminated in the 1970s. “stable salt” fast reactors (liquid fuel in tubes). We discuss load following, reactor design projects, and development problems. Liquid II. LIQUID AND SOLID FUEL MSRS fuel reactors will require a chemical processing plant to adjust fissile fuel inventory, fission products, actinides, and corrosivity in a hot, Neutrons emitted by fission start at high energies, called highly-radioactive environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Quantitative Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Thorium-Based Nuclear Reactor
    IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering PAPER • OPEN ACCESS Preliminary quantitative feasibility analysis of proposed Thorium-based nuclear reactor To cite this article: Anas Muhamad Pauzi et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 555 012006 View the article online for updates and enhancements. This content was downloaded from IP address 43.130.79.121 on 08/10/2021 at 08:30 International Nuclear Science, Technology and Engineering Conference 2018 IOP Publishing IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 555 (2019) 012006 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/555/1/012006 Preliminary quantitative feasibility analysis of proposed Thorium-based nuclear reactor Anas Muhamad Pauzi1,a), Azril Wasim Abdul Wahid1, Juniza Md Saad1 1College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Jalan IKRAM-UNITEN, 43000 Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia [email protected] Abstract. In the beginning of the 21st century, several research institutions and also private companies had proposed various design of thorium-based nuclear reactor, ranging from solid fuel to molten fuel, fast and thermal neutron spectrum and also various path of waste management. This paper studies 10 of the proposed reactor designs by 10 different organizations, three key aspects analysed quantitatively namely price per kilowatt, safety features and spent fuel managements. Corresponding factors contributing to the key aspects mentioned above were gathered, weighted based on evidence available and analysed using decision matrix. Based on the information collected, preliminary ranking were constructed based on trends between various factors. 1. Introduction 1.1. Thorium reactor developer of the 21st century Thorium fuel reactor was first developed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in 1950s, under the Aircraft Reactor Experimental (ARE) by Alvin Weinberg, then director of ORNL.
    [Show full text]
  • “Advanced” Isn't Always Better
    SERIES TITLE OPTIONAL “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors Edwin Lyman March 2021 © 2021 Union of Concerned Scientists All Rights Reserved Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety in the UCS Climate and Energy Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/resources/ advanced-isnt-always-better and https:// doi.org/10.47923/2021.14000 Designed by: David Gerratt, Acton, MA www.NonprofitDesign.com Cover photo: Argonne National Laboratory/Creative Commons (Flickr) Printed on recycled paper. ii union of concerned scientists [ contents ] vi Figures, Tables, and Boxes vii Acknowledgments executive summary 2 Key Questions for Assessing NLWR Technologies 2 Non-Light Water Reactor Technologies 4 Evaluation Criteria 5 Assessments of NLWR Types 8 Safely Commercializing NLWRs: Timelines and Costs 9 The Future of the LWR 9 Conclusions of the Assessment 11 Recommendations 12 Endnotes chapter 1 13 Nuclear Power: Present and Future 13 Slower Growth, Cost and Safety Concerns 14 Can Non-Light-Water Reactors
    [Show full text]
  • Prospects for Small Modular Reactors in the UK & Worldwide
    Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia Submission 277 - Attachment 2 Prospects for Small Modular Reactors in the UK & Worldwide STEVE THOMAS, PAUL DORFMAN, SEAN MORRIS & M.V. RAMANA AUGUST 2019 Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia Submission 277 - Attachment 2 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5 2. The Economic Failure of Large Reactors ...................................................................... 5 3. Small Modular Reactors.................................................................................................. 7 4. Main SMR Designs .......................................................................................................... 9 4.1. A Short History of Small Reactors .......................................................................... 9 4.2. Light Water Reactors (LWRs) ............................................................................... 10 4.2.1. NuScale SMR .................................................................................................... 11 4.2.2. Holtec SMR-160 ............................................................................................... 12 4.2.3. CNNC ACP100 ................................................................................................. 12 4.2.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Molten Salt Reactors History
    Molten Salt Reactors By Thomas J. Dolan The accidents at Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, and Fukushima Daiichi were caused by evaporation of coolant, steam explosion, and hydrogen generation. They would not have occurred in a molten salt reactor (MSR), which can operate at low pressure without generating steam or hydrogen. MSRs with solid fuels, such as ceramic pebbles developed for HTGRs, could operate safely at high temperature and low pressure. Liquid fueled MSRs could process the fuel online to adjust reactivity and remove some fission products, reducing core radioactivity, avoiding solid fuel clad damage, and extending core life. Either the U-239Pu fuel cycle or the Th-233U fuel cycle could breed additional fissile fuel. MSRs could burn actinides from used light water reactor (LWR) fuel, reducing the need for geological high-level waste disposal. We will discuss MSR history, solid and liquid fuel reactors, tritium, salt processing systems, nonproliferation, reactor design projects, international cooperation, and development issues. 1 History Alvin M. Weinberg, Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), led the development of liquid fuel MSRs. ORNL built the Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE) that used liquid fuel of NaF-ZrF4-UF4 (53-41-6 in mol%), flowing through fuel tubes, with BeO moderator, Inconel structure, and liquid Na coolant. It operated successfully at 860 °C, 2.5 MWth, for 100 hours in 1954. ORNL operated the 8 MWth Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) burning liquid 7LiF- BeF2-ZrF4- (65-29-5-1 mol%) fuel at 650 °C from 1965-1969. The molten salt flowed vertically upwards through graphite moderator tubes, Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Program
    PRELIMINARY PROGRAM 55th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society 22nd Biennial Campus Radiation Safety Officers Meeting (American Conference of Radiological Safety) 27 June - 1 July 2010 Salt Palace Convention Center Salt Lake City, Utah Key Dates Current Events/Works-In-Progress Deadline . .28 May Social/Technical Preregistration Deadline . .31 May HPS Annual Meeting Preregistration Deadline . 31 May PEP Preregistration Deadline . .31 May Hotel Registration Deadline . 5 June AAHP Courses . 26 June Professional Enrichment Program . 27 June - 1 July HPS 55th Annual Meeting . 27 June - 1 July American Board of Health Physics Written Exam . 28 June Registration Hours and Location Registration at the Salt Palace Convention Center - Foyer of Exhibit Hall A Saturday, 26 June . 2:00 - 5:00 pm Sunday, 27 June . 10:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday, 28 June . 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Tuesday, 29 June . 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Wednesday, 30 June . 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Thursday, 1 July . 8:00 - 11:00 am Saturday Saturday AAHP Courses will take place in the Hilton Hotel Sunday - Thursday All PEPs, CELs and Sessions will be at the Salt Palace Convention Center HPS Secretariat 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd. Suite 402 McLean, VA22101 (703) 790-1745; FAX: (703) 790-2672 Email: [email protected]; Website: www.hps.org 1 Table of Contents Important Events . 6 General Information . 7 Hotel Reservation Information . 7 Tours and Events Listing . 9 Scientific Program . 12 Placement Information . 32 AAHP Courses . 33 Professional Enrichment Program . 34 Continuing Education Lecture Abstracts . 46 Annual Meeting Registration Form . 48-49 CURRENT EVENTS/WORKS-IN-PROGRESS The submission form for the Current Events/Works-in-Progress poster session is on the Health Physics Society Website at www .hps .org under the Salt Lake City Annual Meeting section .
    [Show full text]
  • NEWSLETTER Issue No. 10 October 2020
    NEWSLETTER October 2020 Issue no. 10 https://www.iop.org/physics-community/special-interest-groups/nuclear-industry-group Nuclear Industry Group Newsletter October 2020 Contents Notes from the Editor..................................................................................................... 3 New Committee Members ............................................................................................. 4 Committee Elections ...................................................................................................... 5 Nuclear Industry Group Prizes 2020 ............................................................................... 6 Learning from Canada’s Waste Management Organisation ............................................ 8 Event – The Safest Long-Term Solution: The Case for Geological Disposal .................... 14 2020 Webinar Series .................................................................................................... 18 Nuclear Industry Supplement ....................................................................................... 22 Continued Professional Development .......................................................................... 22 Upcoming Events .......................................................................................................... 23 Nuclear Industry Group on Social Media ...................................................................... 23 Letters to the Group ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • “Advanced” Isn't Always Better
    SERIES TITLE OPTIONAL “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors Edwin Lyman March 2021 © 2021 Union of Concerned Scientists All Rights Reserved Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety in the UCS Climate and Energy Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/resources/ advanced-isnt-always-better and https:// doi.org/10.47923/2021.14000 Designed by: David Gerratt, Acton, MA www.NonprofitDesign.com Cover photo: Argonne National Laboratory/Creative Commons (Flickr) Printed on recycled paper. ii union of concerned scientists [ contents ] vi Figures, Tables, and Boxes vii Acknowledgments executive summary 2 Key Questions for Assessing NLWR Technologies 2 Non-Light Water Reactor Technologies 4 Evaluation Criteria 5 Assessments of NLWR Types 8 Safely Commercializing NLWRs: Timelines and Costs 9 The Future of the LWR 9 Conclusions of the Assessment 11 Recommendations 12 Endnotes chapter 1 13 Nuclear Power: Present and Future 13 Slower Growth, Cost and Safety Concerns 14 Can Non-Light-Water Reactors
    [Show full text]
  • Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (Smnrs) Not Clean, Not Small, Not Green, Not Affordable
    Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMNRs) Not Clean, Not Small, Not Green, Not Affordable New Brunswick March 12-13, 2020 by Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility e-mail: [email protected] www.ccnr.org Introduction: The Status of the Nuclear Industry World Nuclear Association Data 1996 – 438 reactors 2019– 442 reactors 17% of global electricity 10% of global electricity (< 3.3% of global energy) (< 2% of global energy) US Energy Information Administration (EIA) The First Nuclear Renaissance: a litany of failures Collapse of French giant Areva Olkiluoto reactor (1400 Mwe) in Finland – begun in 2005. It was to be operational by 2009, at a cost of 3 billion euros. Latest estimate - March 2019, at a cost of at least 8.5 billion euros. One of the “stars” of the “Nuclear Renaissance” Almost 4 times as long to build as promised, & cost almost 3 times as This “bankrupted” Areva – mucH money. it was absorbed by Electricté de France. Bankruptcy of Westinghouse Westinghouse Electric filed for bankruptcy in 2017 because of $9 billion in losses from nuclear reactor construction projects – mainly the four AP1000 reactors: Vogtl in Georgia & V C Summer in S Carolina. The US federal government had given $8.3 billion in loan guarantees S Carolina abandoned the on the financing of the four reactors. project, Georgia did not. Bursting the Uranium Bubble “THe State of Affairs “The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), looking ahead to 2050, sees the most optimistic global electricity market share for nuclear as only about 5 percent, down from 10 percent today .
    [Show full text]