NuScale Submits First-Ever Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Design to NRC

[thackney]

NuScale Submits First-Ever Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Design to NRC
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2017/01/nuscale-power-submits-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-design-to-nrc.html
Jan 13, 2017

NuScale Power, which has Fluor Corporation as its majority investor, has completed its design for a small modular nuclear reactor within commercial power plants and has submitted it for approval to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.



The application is the first-ever SMR to be submitted to the NRC for approval.

The small modular reactors include scalable plants that can incrementally increase output depending on demand. The technology can integrate with other energy sources such as wind and solar.

NuScale expects demand for their SMRs will create thousands of jobs, re-establish U.S. leadership in the nuclear field and pave the way for the development and approval of additional advanced nuclear technology.

“Fluor continues to be proud of its investment in NuScale and how the company has rapidly moved through the design certification application process, and we are eagerly awaiting NRC review and approval,” said David Seaton, Fluor’s chairman and CEO. “We believe that the future of the U.S. nuclear industry is in small modular reactor technology and that NuScale is uniquely positioned as the only U.S. company that offers it.”

As the application consists of nearly 12,000 pages, the NRC is expected to take two months to determine if any further information is necessary, and the certification process could take up to 40 months.

The first commercial power plant to use the NuScale SMRs will be a 12-module facility to be built on the site of the Idaho National Laboratory, which will be owned by the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems and perated by Energy Northwest. It has an estimated operation date of 2026.

NuScale predicts approximately 55-75 GW of global electricity will come from SMRs by 2035.

Fluor has invested in NuScale since October 2011.

[thackney]

The NuScale SMR is an advanced light-water reactor wherein each NuScale Power Module is a self-contained unit that operates independently within a multi-module configuration. Up to 12 modules are monitored and operated from a single control room.

(1) The reactor measures 65 feet tall x 9 feet in diameter. It sits within a containment vessel.

(2) The reactor and containment vessel operate inside a water-filled pool that is built below grade. The reactor operates using the principles of natural circulation; hence, no pumps are needed to circulate water through the reactor. Instead, the system uses a convection process. Water is heated as it passes over the core.

(3) As it heats up, the water rises within the interior of the vessel. Once the heated water reaches the top of the riser, it is drawn downward by water that is cooled passing through the steam generators.

(4) The cooler water has a higher density. It is pulled by gravity back down to the bottom of the reactor where it is again drawn over the core. Water in the reactor system is kept separate from the water in the steam generator system to prevent contamination. As the hot water in the reactor system passes over the hundreds of tubes in the steam generator, heat is transferred through the tube walls and the water in the tubes turns to steam. The steam turns turbines which are attached by a single shaft to the electrical generator. After passing through the turbines, the steam loses its energy. It is cooled back into liquid form in the condenser then pumped by the feed water pump back to the steam generator where it begins the cycle again.

NuScale Power Module details include:

Thermal capacity – 160 MWt

Electrical capacity – 50 MWe (gross)

Capacity factor – >95 percent

Dimensions – 76' x 15' cylindrical containment vessel module containing reactor and steam generator

Weight – ~ 700 tons as shipped from fabrication shop

Transportation – Barge, truck or train

Cost – Numerous advantages due to simplicity, off-the-shelf standard items, modular design, shorter construction times, <$5,100/KW

Fuel – Standard LWR fuel in 17 x 17 configuration, each assembly 2 meters (~ 6 ft.) in length; 24-month refueling cycle with fuel enriched less than 4.95 percent



http://www.nuscalepower.com/our-technology/technology-overview

[Joe Wooten]

As long as natural gas prices stay low, nuke plants will not be competitive with them. SMR's will not save the industry. I work for the largest nuclear plant supplier in the world and we are hurting and I see nothing to stop the problem, other than a massive increase in natural gas prices.

[dfwgator]

[endicom]

"Be the first to vaporize your neighborhood."

[Doug Loss]

Besides NuScale, both Gen4 and Holtec are working on SMRs:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
http://www.holtecinternational.com/productsandservices/smr/
https://smrllc.com/
http://www.gen4energy.com/

[thackney]

As long as natural gas prices stay low, nuke plants will not be competitive with them. SMR's will not save the industry. I work for the largest nuclear plant supplier in the world and we are hurting and I see nothing to stop the problem, other than a massive increase in natural gas prices.

Natural gas prices in 2016 were the lowest in nearly 20 years
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29552

[Joe Wooten]

Besides NuScale, both Gen4 and Holtec are working on SMRs:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
http://www.holtecinternational.com/productsandservices/smr/
https://smrllc.com/
http://www.gen4energy.com/

The Circlebarw Ranch also has one.......

[Elderberry]

[Elderberry]

Design-Specific Review Standard for NuScale Small Modular Reactor Design.

Accession Number: ML15355A295

Date Released: Friday, August 5, 2016

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files.

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1535/ML15355A295.html

[IsailedawayfromFR]

As long as natural gas prices stay low, nuke plants will not be competitive with them. SMR's will not save the industry. I work for the largest nuclear plant supplier in the world and we are hurting and I see nothing to stop the problem, other than a massive increase in natural gas prices.

are you saying that already-installed nuclear power generation has a higher operating expense than already-installed natural gas power generation? 

What is referred to in this article is new installations, not existing, so I wanted to be clear on your statement as to it pertaining to new or existing capacity.

[Oceander]

As long as natural gas prices stay low, nuke plants will not be competitive with them. SMR's will not save the industry. I work for the largest nuclear plant supplier in the world and we are hurting and I see nothing to stop the problem, other than a massive increase in natural gas prices.

The key being "as long as".  Given the length of time it takes to get something like a nuke plant designed, approved, prototyped, etc, now may be a good time to get the process well under way so there isn't so much lag time once those prices (inevitably) start climbing again. 

[thackney]

are you saying that already-installed nuclear power generation has a higher operating expense than already-installed natural gas power generation? 

What is referred to in this article is new installations, not existing, so I wanted to be clear on your statement as to it pertaining to new or existing capacity.

For existing capacity, the nuclear wins the cost comparison in $/kWH.  But if building new, the combined cycle Nat Gas, or even simple cycle wins the costs.

Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2016
http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

[Joe Wooten]

are you saying that already-installed nuclear power generation has a higher operating expense than already-installed natural gas power generation? 

What is referred to in this article is new installations, not existing, so I wanted to be clear on your statement as to it pertaining to new or existing capacity.

Yes. Any combined cycle (or just a single cycle ) gas fired plant can generate electricity cheaper than the fleet of existing nukes in the US as long as gas prices stay below ~$4-5 MMBTU. New nuke plants will have the same problem. The biggest cost in a nuke plant is people, and that is entirely regulatory driven. Generally a 2 unit nuke will employ about 700 to 1000 full time employees. A combined cycle gas plant the same size will have about 40.

That cost up until about 2007 was covered by the higher cost of coal or gas fuel costs. Now, with gas prices hovering ~$2.50 MMBTU, the relatively low cost of uranium fuel is lost and nuke plants are having trouble staying profitable. In fact, in areas with large government subsidized wind generation, they are losing money as the wind folks pay customers up to $0.01/Kwh to take their electricity and still make a profit, so the nuke utilities have to do the same, but they do not have the subsidy to allow them to still make money.

Nuke plants can survive being the second cheapest. They were second fiddle to coal fired plants for decades nationwide and Texas did not get in on the first round of nuke construction in the 60's due to very cheap natural gas. Up until 1969 or so, Texas was almost 100% gas fired electricity until the Big Brown Lignite fired plant went online.

[Joe Wooten]

The key being "as long as".  Given the length of time it takes to get something like a nuke plant designed, approved, prototyped, etc, now may be a good time to get the process well under way so there isn't so much lag time once those prices (inevitably) start climbing again.

Are you as a utility customer willing to pay for this? In the old days of vertically integrated local monopoly utilities, they could do this sort of long term planning and easily put it in the rate base. Now, with essentially a de-regulated market, the advantage goes to whomever can deliver the cheapest electricity NOW! Little, if any consideration can be given to what will happen in the future.

[Joe Wooten]

For existing capacity, the nuclear wins the cost comparison in $/kWH.  But if building new, the combined cycle Nat Gas, or even simple cycle wins the costs.

Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2016
http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Right now, all existing nuke plants in the US are under severe financial stress due mainly to the low cost of gas fired electricity from combined cycle plants and subsidized electricity from so-called "renewables". My company has seen a lot of engineering work supporting them dry up since they have tightened their belts and ONLY immediate regulatory driven work is happening. No improvements or large capital projects are being undertaken at this point. Even non-critical maintenance is being delayed.

In light of this, I take that EIA report with a very large grain of salt.

[thackney]

For existing capacity, the nuclear wins the cost comparison in $/kWH.

I need to correct myself; this isn't true for all nuclear plants.  Some of the older ones, particularly the ones that need significant dollars prior to a license renewal cannot compete with an abundant local supply of Natural Gas.

As New York has already shown to be true...

[thackney]

Right now, all existing nuke plants in the US are under severe financial stress due mainly to the low cost of gas fired electricity from combined cycle plants and subsidized electricity from so-called "renewables". My company has seen a lot of engineering work supporting them dry up since they have tightened their belts and ONLY immediate regulatory driven work is happening. No improvements or large capital projects are being undertaken at this point. Even non-critical maintenance is being delayed.

In light of this, I take that EIA report with a very large grain of salt.

I can accept that for most areas, but some areas in New England for example, have become so pipeline constrained that Natural Gas prices are higher locally and no real fuel source for additional NatGas power to replace existing Nukes.

[Joe Wooten]

I need to correct myself; this isn't true for all nuclear plants.  Some of the older ones, particularly the ones that need significant dollars prior to a license renewal cannot compete with an abundant local supply of Natural Gas.

As New York has already shown to be true...

Indian Point closing is more a political deal made by the rabidly anti-nuke Gov. Cuomo.

[Joe Wooten]

I can accept that for most areas, but some areas in New England for example, have become so pipeline constrained that Natural Gas prices are higher locally and no real fuel source for additional NatGas power to replace existing Nukes.

Agreed. Pipeline NIMBY-ism is second only to nuke NIMBY-ism among lefties running New England. Californicatia takes a close second to them on this. I am waiting on Gov. Moonbeam to start closing down pipelines in order to fulfill his "carbon reduction" goals.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Indian Point closing is more a political deal made by the rabidly anti-nuke Gov. Cuomo.

He is also a rabid anti-gas pipeline guy as he refuses to allow fraccing for the lucrative Marcellus shale that is the largest gas producer in the country. 

Amounts to a 'taking' of the mineral owner's property, jacks up the price of all energy and forces the fuel oil barges to move through the water systems with their potential to pollute the rivers.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Agreed. Pipeline NIMBY-ism is second only to nuke NIMBY-ism among lefties running New England. Californicatia takes a close second to them on this. I am waiting on Gov. Moonbeam to start closing down pipelines in order to fulfill his "carbon reduction" goals.

@thackney @Joe Wooten

To summarize your knowledgeable discussions, is this correct?

1. Most, but not all, current installed natural gas generation capacity is more profitable to operate than nuclear.

2. It will be difficult to justify any new nuclear generation capacity unless natural gas prices rise significantly for an extended time.

Fair?

[thackney]

1. Most, but not all, current installed natural gas generation capacity is more profitable to operate than nuclear.

That is very dependent on the price of gas, which is likely to stay a "low" price, but betting on the future price of gas is something I learned to stop doing.  Understanding the industry is not enough to predict future prices.



How much LNG is Asia and Europe going to import in 2 years?  Will Qatar get swept up in their own "Arab Spring"?  What political turn will impact Hydraulic Fracturing?  Will we have a harsh winter?

[thackney]

Indian Point closing is more a political deal made by the rabidly anti-nuke Gov. Cuomo.

True, but that is just one example out of several others.

U.S. REACTOR CLOSURES SINCE 2013
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/reactors-are-closing/

Fort Calhoun             (NE)               closed 10/24/2016

Vermont Yankee       (VT)                closed 12/29/2014

San Onofre 2 & 3      (CA)               closed 06/12/2013

Kewaunee                 (WI)               closed 05/07/2013

Crystal River             (FL)                closed 02/20/2013

 
ANNOUNCED U.S. REACTOR CLOSURES

FitzPatrick (NY)              1/27/2017 [Was to have closed, but now Gov. Cuomo's nuclear tax, a bailout at ratepayer expense, of $7.6 billion, would extend upstate NY reactor operations for a dozen years beyond 2017, including at FitzPatrick]

Ginna (NY)                     March 2017 (Was to have closed, absent state approved ratepayer bailout; see FitzPatrick note above re: Gov. Cuomo's nuclear tax)

Clinton (IL)                     06/01/2017 (Was to have closed, absent early Dec., 2016 state-approved ratepayer bailout approved by Gov. Rauner and the State Legislature)

Three Mile Island 1 (PA)  May 2018 (absent potential state-approved ratepayer bailout)

Quad Cities 1 & 2  (IL)    06/01/2018 (Was to have closed, absent early Dec., 2016 state-approved ratepayer bailout; see Clinton above)

Oyster Creek (NJ)           12/31/2019 or sooner

Pilgrim (MA)                   06/01/2019 or sooner

Indian Point 2 (NY)          4/30/2020 (or 4/30/2024), per agreement with State of NY and Riverkeeper

Indian Point 3 (NY)          4/30/2021 (or 4/30/2025), per agreement with State of NY and Riverkeeper

Diablo Canyon 1 (CA)      11/02/2024 (PG&E will not seek a 20-year license extension)

Diablo Canyon 2  (CA)     08/26/2025 (PG&E will not seek a 20-year license extension)

[Fishrrman]

So long as power plants can be fueled by natural gas or coal, I don't see nuclear power coming back any time soon. Certainly not for 40-50 years.

Fukushima killed it.

That is all...