STATUS OF U.S. NUCLEAR OUTAGES

To some observers, the plan’s collapse also raises questions about the feasibility of other planned advanced reactors, meant to provide clean energy with fewer drawbacks than existing reactors. NuScale’s was the most conventional of the designs, and the closest to construction. “There’s plenty of reasons to think [the other projects] are going to be even more difficult and expensive,” says Edwin Lyman, a physicist and director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. //

Jacopo Buongiorno, a nuclear engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says the NuScale design has an Achilles’ heel. Each reactor’s core resides within a double-walled steel cylinder, with a vacuum between the walls to keep heat from leaking out. The reactor modules sit in a big pool of water, which in an emergency can flood into the vacuum space around a reactor to prevent it overheating. Compared with a conventional reactor’s building, the pool requires more reinforced concrete, the price of which has soared, Buongiorno says. “In terms of tons of reinforced concrete per megawatt of power, NuScale’s design is off the chart.” //

Buongiorno says he wouldn’t read NuScale’s failure as a verdict on all advanced reactor designs. “I would steer clear of broad-stroke comments in terms of cost,” he says. Baker says he has no doubt that the country needs new nuclear plants to supplement the fluctuating supply of power from wind and solar. “To achieve the nation’s decarbonization goals, it’s got to happen.”

Uranium mining in the United States hasn’t been profitable since the Russians flooded the global market with predatorily priced ore and processed fuel a decade ago.

Long before, the nation’s uranium enrichment industry, episodically idled by market paralyses and perpetually frozen in costly regulatory entanglements, had fallen into obsolescence.

In 1980, the United States produced and processed 90 percent of the uranium used by 251 nuclear power plants that generated 11 percent of the country’s electricity.

In 2021, only 5 percent of the uranium used by the 55 nuclear power plants operating in the United States—which now generate 20 percent of the nation’s electricity—was produced domestically.

After years of Russian market manipulation stymied profitable domestic production, Congress has responded since 2020 with a series of bills that could, if approved, collectively spend up to $5 billion by 2035 in an attempt to bring a domestic commercial uranium market back to life. //

But unfortunately, there’s nowhere in the United States for Wyoming mines to send ore for enrichment. Nationwide, only one plant in New Mexico has the capacity to enrich uranium for use in commercial nuclear reactors.

“Even if we were mining it now, we’re shipping it somewhere else [overseas] to get it enriched and refined,” Deti said. “When it comes to conversion and enrichment, we have no capacity to do that [in the United States]."

An exciting advancement over prior AR Summits was the major role that customers played in presentations and hallway conversations. Though nuclear utility operating companies like Duke Energy, TVA, Southern Company and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) made important and encouraging presentations, the strong demand signals provided by Nucor – the largest steelmaker in the US, Dow – one of the largest chemical companies in the world, and Microsoft – one of the world’s largest data center operators – made an even bigger impact on most attendees.

Presentations from Nucore, Microsoft and Dow validated many of the concepts that have long motivated advanced nuclear developers. They showed that credible customers were willing to pay for process heat, always-on carbon free power, and behind the meter installations.

Each of the three said they were willing to assist entities that would own and operate the facilities in obtaining affordable financing by inking long-term, economically viable power purchase agreements (PPAs). Projects with PPAs from established, well-capitalized companies are almost as bankable as a captive base of ratepayers. None of them want to own or operate nuclear power plants.

This post is a sampling of information gleaned during the event. There may be additional posts based on presentations and conversations at the Summit. Several important players in the advanced nuclear community did not attend the conference. //

NuScale has attracted several strategic investors/partners that will help build its plants and/or buy power from those facilities. A notable recent addition to the NuScale team is Nucor, the largest steel maker in the United States.

Nucor is so excited about the capabilities that SMRs offer to meet some of its most challenging requirement that it sent Leon Topalian, its Chairman, President and CEO, to the summit to meet members of NIC and to provide a keynote address. (Attendees also appreciated Nucor’s hospitality as the sponsor of a rooftop welcoming reception.)

Aside: Topalian proudly reminded the audience that Nucor’s initial name was Nuclear Corporation of America. It long ago pivoted to focus on steel making but is now returning to its roots. End Aside.

Nucor operates 50 electric arc furnaces in the US. Its total electricity demand is about 50 GWe that has little variation during the 8760 hours of each per. Assuming Nucor facilities have capacity factors that are close to 90%, its electricity demand is almost 50% of the power produced by the current US nuclear fleet.

Prescription for the Planet

by Tom Blees

"This is the most important book that has ever been written on sustainable development... You MUST read it! It is not A revolution, it is THE revolution, THE way to go."

• Bruno Comby Ph.D, Founder and President of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy

Click here to download the entire book as a PDF courtesy of the author and SCGI.

Pandora's Promise

Pandora's Promise is a 2013 documentary film about the nuclear power debate, directed by Robert Stone. Its central argument is that nuclear power, which still faces historical opposition from environmentalists, is a relatively safe and clean energy source which can help mitigate the serious problem of anthropogenic global warming.

View Pandoras's Promise on Youtube. https://youtu.be/KMutoR8YTlQ

View Pandora's Promise at Netflix. https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Pandora-s-Promise/70267585

Plentiful Energy
The Story of the Integral Fast Reactor: The complex history of a simple reactor technology, with emphasis on its scientific basis for non-specialists

Authored by Charles E. Till, Yoon Il Chang

A people's guide to our nuclear planet

An introduction to nuclear radiation and its impacts on human health and Earth’s environment.

By Ron Gester, retired geologist & physician, 2023.

Earth is a nuclear planet … and nuclear energy is essential for our existence on Earth.

Without Earth's molten core, life as we know it would not exist. Earth is protected from extreme levels of cosmic and solar radiation by a geomagnetic field generated by the rotation of Earth’s molten core. It rotates because of a combination of convection, due to heat, and Earth's rotation. The heat is generated in part from the radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium isotopes. [Johnston, 2011] This heat also contributes to convection in the mantle which drives plate tectonics and continental drift. Nuclear energy is a natural and essential force on Earth. Nuclear fission reactors have occurred naturally in Earth’s geologic past. Rock formations in Oklo, Gabon, W. Africa reveal that self-sustaining nuclear reactions ran in these formations for hundreds of thousands of years starting about 1.7 billion years ago.

Nuclear radiation is everywhere. What is it?

Nuclear radiation is a form of energy released from the decay of the nuclei of certain kinds of atoms. It is the same whether it is naturally occurring or man-made. It can be described as waves or particles and is part of the electromagnetic spectrum that includes light and radio waves. Ionizing radiation is radiation that has enough energy to remove electrons from their orbits, creating ions. Examples of ionizing radiation are high-level ultraviolet light, X-rays, and gamma rays. Natural uranium emits gamma rays. Uranium is not a scarce resource. As a result of its very wide range of geochemical behavior, it is present in most soil, rocks, and water. [Deffeyes, 1980]

Low-dose ionizing radiation is safe. How do we know this? Research in biology & epidemiology.

Life on Earth evolved in a radioactive environment. This background radiation comes from space and Earth. Life has adapted to it to survive. This is true in different ways for the many threats to life including heat, cold, sunshine, and oxygen.

The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) is a fourth-generation fast nuclear reactor design that offers more efficiency and safety, while generating 1,000 times less waste than current light-water reactors, the predominant designs used in the US. It uses existing nuclear waste for fuel. The energy needs of the US can be supplied for over 1,000 years just using the existing nuclear waste now in storage.

1. Proven to be reliable and safe over almost 50 years of operational experience

• Ran for 30 years in the USA without any mishaps
• Chernobyl and TMI scenarios were tested on the IFR: the IFR reactor shut itself down w/o human intervention or active safety systems.
• Russians have been running commercially for 30 years without problem (BN-600)
• Passively safe (guaranteed by the physics). Does not require electricity, operator intervention, or active safety systems to shut down if it overheats.

2. The waste has 1,000 times less long-term radioactivity per unit of power than LWR (waste meaning what is no longer usable in the reactor).

3. Uses existing nuclear waste (DU, decommissioned bombs) for fuel. A variety of fuels can be used (any actinide), not just uranium. //

4. Using fast reactors, there is more energy in the trace uranium in the coal than we get from burning the coal. Extracting uranium from coal ash is on the verge of being economically competitive.

In just two decades Sweden went from burning oil for generating electricity to fissioning uranium. And if the world as a whole were to follow that example, all fossil fuel–fired power plants could be replaced with nuclear facilities in a little over 30 years. That's the conclusion of a new nuclear grand plan published May 13 in PLoS One. Such a switch would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nearly achieving much-ballyhooed global goals to combat climate change. Even swelling electricity demands, concentrated in developing nations, could be met. All that's missing is the wealth, will and wherewithal to build hundreds of fission-based reactors, largely due to concerns about safety and cost. //

Based on numbers pulled by the research team from the experience of Sweden and France and scaled up to the globe, a best-case scenario for conversion to 100 percent nuclear power could enable the world to stop burning fossil fuels and start fissioning uranium for electricity within 34 years. Requirements for this shift of course would include expanded uranium mining and processing, a build-out of the electric grid as well as a commitment to develop and build fast reactors—nuclear technology that operates with faster neutrons and therefore can handle radioactive waste, such as plutonium, for fuel as well as create its own future fuel. "No other carbon-neutral electricity source has been expanded anywhere near as fast as nuclear," Qvist says.

Our Vision

Humanity already has the technology to implement a global energy revolution. We can now usher in a post-scarcity era while solving the most intractable problems that threaten life on Earth.
Our Mission

The Science Council for Global Initiatives, Inc. (SCGI) is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to informing the public and policymakers about technologies and strategies that can lead to an energy-rich world. SCGI provides a forum for many of the world's prominent scientists, authors and activists to collaborate and share their knowledge regarding solutions to the world's energy, resource and environmental problems.

Contrary to claims by opponents of nuclear energy that it is “unsafe,” “unclean,” and thus “unacceptable,” nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, and among the most practical forms of power generation today. Unfortunately, opponents of this wonderful source of power are succeeding in their efforts to deceive people about it; and the deceived, in turn, are fueling legislation and regulations that shackle the nuclear industry. It is time to set the record straight and to defend this life-serving industry.

ThorCon is a thorium converter. The initial fuel charge is largely thorium. During the eight year fuel cycle, a portion of the fertile thorium is converted to fissile U-233 which then becomes part of the fuel. Each ThorCon will require 5.3 kg of 19.7% enriched uranium and 9.0 kg of thorium per day, on average.

ThorCon clobbers coal on fuel cost. An extreme lower bound on coal fuel cost is 2 cents per kWh. Even at $90/kg U3O8, about double the current yellowcake spot price, ThorCon’s fuel cost is less than 0.6 cents per kWh.

Even on a once-through basis, ThorCon is uranium efficient. Averaged over 8 years, we annually feed 1,930 kg of 19.7% enriched uranium derived from 72,500 kg of natural mined uranium. This equates to 145 tonnes of natural uranium per full power GW-year compared to about 250 tonnes for a standard light water reactor (LWR).

After 8 years ThorCon will have been fed 3 tonnes of fissile U-235 fuel, but its “spent” fuel will still contain 1 tonne of fissile fuels U-233 (408 kg) and U-235 (624 kg). ThorCon’s net consumption of fissile uranium is less than half that of a LWR, due to higher thermal efficiency, removal of Xe-135, and U-233 production from thorium.

In the future, re-enriching this back to 19.7% would take about 48 SWU per kg U-235. At competitive enrichment costs of $50/SWU, $2400 for 1 kg of U-235 is cheap. Such future re-enrichment would cut ThorCon’s uranium requirements by a third.

ThorCon generates reliable electric power cheaper than coal, competitive with natural gas, cheaper than LNG, cheaper than storage-buffered wind and solar. //

• 1 GW ThorCon: 280 tons fuelsalt every 8 years
• 1 GW coal plant: 10,000 tons coal every day
  ...
  Overall the resource cost of the ThorCon is half that of the coal plant. Assuming efficient regulation, ThorCon capital cost will be cheaper than coal.

If you don't pursue safety in a way that is cost effective, you are killing people.[David Okrent]

We know the litany. Nuclear power is too slow. Nuclear power is too expensive. I propose another more grievous fault. Nuclear power is too safe, way too safe.

It is easy to show that, if society wants to be efficient in avoiding deaths, the amount of resources devoted to avoiding the marginal death in all hazardous activities should be the same. Otherwise we can shift resources from the activity in which the cost of avoiding a death is high to activities in which the cost of avoiding a death is low, and end up with less lives lost at the same overall cost.

If I were Alexander

Since I am running out of things to say about nuclear power, it is time to play king-of-the-world. Suppose I were given the omnipotent capabilities to change the rules currently reserved for the NRC, what would I do to resurrect nuclear power in the United States and show humanity a solution to the Gordian knot of energy poverty and global warming?

The Progressive Case for Nuclear Energy
(A presentation prepared by Nucleation Capital in 2020, updated in 2021. Click the image to view the deck.)

It's 60 years since the world's first full-scale nuclear power station, Calder Hall in Cumbria, was officially opened by The Queen.  

I expected to hate this film; but that's not where I ended up. With a few glaring exceptions, the problem is not what is in the film. The problem is what is not. The crucial importance of cost is barely mentioned in passing. The fact that nuclear power was and could and should be the cheapest source of electricity is not even hinted at. And the elephant in the room, the NRC regulatory apparat, is totally ignored.

I came away thinking so close, and so far.

Here's another example of a project you've probably never heard of (I hadn't), where USA taxpayers will spend something like a billion dollars to move slightly radioactive material from one place to another. Between 1956 and 1983, one of the major USA mills for converting uranium ore to yellow cake, U3O8, was located just outside Moab, Utah on the Colorado River. The mill was built by the uranium king, Charlie Steen. It made the town of Moab. //

In 2003, the dose rates on top of the Pile were 0.014 to 0.047 mSv/d for photons, and 0.041 to 0.052 mSv/d due to radon. Both are far below the tolerance dose of 1 mSv/d, and well below the background dose rates in parts of Kerala. The dose rates at the nearest residence, which is right on the edge of the mill property, were 0.0021 mSv/d photon and 0.0115 mSv/d radon. The background dose rates in the area are about 0.0022 mSv/d photon and 0.0044 mSv/d radon. In other words, at the edge of the mill the photon dose rate is background, and the radon dose rate is less than one-fourth the EPA action limit (8 mSv/y) for indoor radon.