Remove ads

NuScale’s small nuclear reactor is first to get US safety approval

TheHappyVampire

TheHappyVampire

Location
California, USA
NuScale's small nuclear reactor is first to get US safety approval
One hope buoying nuclear energy advocates has been the promise of "small modular reactor" designs. By dividing a nuclear facility into an array of smaller reactors, they can largely be manufactured in a factory and then dropped into place, saving us from having to build a complex, possibly one-of-a-kind behemoth on site. That could be a big deal for nuclear's persistent financial problems, while also enabling some design features that further improve safety.

On Friday, the first small modular reactor received a design certification from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, meaning that it meets safety requirements and could be chosen by future projects seeking licensing and approval.

The design comes from NuScale, a company birthed from research at Oregon State University that has received some substantial Department of Energy funding. It's a 76-foot-tall, 15-foot-wide steel cylinder (23 meters by 5 meters) capable of producing 50 megawatts of electricity. (The company also has a 60-megawatt iteration teed up.) They envision a plant employing up to 12 of these reactors in a large pool like those used in current nuclear plants.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The first small modular nuclear reactor has received American safety approval, a reactor designed by the American private company NuScale. The small modular reactors are said to be able to be manufactured in a factory and dropped into place, making the reactors considerably more cost-effective than what is usually built for nuclear reactors.

The cost of construction to house a nuclear reactor is probably the biggest obstacle for nuclear energy. If this small nuclear reactor could make things cheaper, perhaps more people would be able to give nuclear energy a look.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully this works well and can be commercially ready very soon because these would be useful for cities & industrial areas I would wager.
 
Smaller reactors also means you won't overtax water supply or overheat a single river when dropping it in, so that's something to consider. There's probably a lot more sites capable of supporting a small reactor if you don't have the same needs as a bigger plant.
 
Nyvis said:
Smaller reactors also means you won't overtax water supply or overheat a single river when dropping it in, so that's something to consider. There's probably a lot more sites capable of supporting a small reactor if you don't have the same needs as a bigger plant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean the Soviets lead-cooled reactors worked without water at all-shame they had a whole host of other issues!
 
I like the safety features described for this reactor, it supposedly should be capable of preventing any kind of overheating event like we had in Fukushima via passive means alone. If we could replace old reactors with something like this which seems to meet far higher standards of safety, then the chances of any further major problems should go down by a lot.
 
Quickshot0 said:
I like the safety features described for this reactor, it supposedly should be capable of preventing any kind of overheating event like we had in Fukushima via passive means alone. If we could replace old reactors with something like this which seems to meet far higher standards of safety, then the chances of any further major problems should go down by a lot.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fukushima only happened because of incredible level of corruption combined with Japan's very specific issues. No real worry there if they apply existing standards of safety and properly plan for local risks rather than pay politicians to avoid having to do so.
 
Nyvis said:
Fukushima only happened because of incredible level of corruption combined with Japan's very specific issues. No real worry there if they apply existing standards of safety and properly plan for local risks rather than pay politicians to avoid having to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Of course, with well implemented policies and equipment, safety can be quite good in older designs as well. But it's still nice if a reactor design can handle such an event all by itself.
 
Quickshot0 said:
Of course, with well implemented policies and equipment, safety can be quite good in older designs as well. But it's still nice if a reactor design can handle such an event all by itself.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I have come to the point of view that passive safety is essential for nuclear power to be a useful carbon-free primary energy source. I want nuclear power to beat natural gas on price, by a lot. This will pressurize operations costs, and when some yahoos do something to a reactor held together with spit and baling wire the reactor should at worst break, with no release of radioactive material and preferably not even a loud noise.

This is not impossible in principle, but large LWRs can't do that. I am largely ignorant of small LWRs; does NuScale meet this criterion? Molten salt reactors are a good option for achieving this, since their reaction rate is self-regulating by temperature, they are never forced to keep more fissionables in the reactor than needed to barely achieve criticality, and the reactor is unpressurized and has no means of becoming pressurized even if it overheats, so you don't depend on a pressure vessel as a safety barrier. The big pressure vessels and reinforced concrete containment structures are the killer for the economics of large LWRs.
 
Genial Precis said:
This is not impossible in principle, but large LWRs can't do that. I am largely ignorant of small LWRs; does NuScale meet this criterion? Molten salt reactors are a good option for achieving this, since their reaction rate is self-regulating by temperature, they are never forced to keep more fissionables in the reactor than needed to barely achieve criticality, and the reactor is unpressurized and has no means of becoming pressurized even if it overheats, so you don't depend on a pressure vessel as a safety barrier. The big pressure vessels and reinforced concrete containment structures are the killer for the economics of large LWRs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
According to NuScale, the reactors are kept in a huge pool of water as a passive coolant, and the control rods are suspended in place by an electromagnet. If for whatever reason there was a disruption which cut off electricity, the rods will drop and contain the nuclear reaction.
 
Last edited:
Sulemain said:
I mean the Soviets lead-cooled reactors worked without water at all-shame they had a whole host of other issues!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think Nyvis means the water required for cooling large power stations (nuclear or fossil fuel, it's often called a cloud factory for a reason ;)) by having something small enough to either spread out the demand on water or employ passive heat radioation. Presumably the inner loop radioactive water isn't replaced often enough to make an impact in local water supply.
 
Last edited:
Elbrasch said:
I think Nyvis means the water required for cooling large power stations (nuclear or fossil fuel, it's often called a cloud factory for a reason ;)) by having something small enough to either spread out the demand on water or employ passive heat radioation. Presumably the inner loop radioactive water isn't replaced often enough to make an impact in local water supply.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah this. Your internal coolant doesn't matter, you still need an external coolant to cool the internal coolant, and usually, that's water from natural sources around you, which constrains reactor location and density.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top