Your lead: The Big Question on Nuclear Facing Colorado: What will it cost, how long will it take?
I've got a question that needs to be answered first: who makes the decisions on what power production should look like? Are you trying to convince one or more utility companies? People in state government? A wealth billionaire not currently involved in producing electricity?
And others, closely related: Who takes the risks (financial AND safety)? Who pays (and when)? And who benefits from the payments?
There is an opportunity with SMRs. Terrapower is already broken ground on a SMR in Kemmerer Wyoming. Crazy thought - build four more, at the same location. That is 1.4 GW more energy. It would cost <$12 billion (likely $6 billion). Each plant would be identical to the one currently under construction.
Why?
From a regulatory perspective, once one plant has had its design approved, what's the difference between having two plants? Or five? Permits should be a snap. There are no NIMBY issues - that has already been resolved, right? It also makes management of the plants simple, since the same employees can work at any plant. Lots of your O&M costs would decrease - for example you could have common security with all plants. You'd also learn by doing - the first plant makes all the mistakes, but the same workforce, now wiser, means the subsequent builds will proceed smoothly. And Kemmerer isn't that far from Colorado. Transmission could be managed and wouldn't be that costly. You'd be upgrading existing lines. AND this is fully flexible output since energy storage is integrated into the system, meaning you can fully manage wind and solar inputs. Thes plants are fully load following.
The AP1000 and APR-1400 are very different from the Natrium reactors.
1. Natrium is a metal cooled fast reactor. This gives very high energy densities. The core is roughly 1 meter cubed. This results in much smaller reactor buildings, which should be faster to build
2. Natrium operates at atmospheric pressure. There are no heavy forgings or pressure piping to manufacture. Because there is no pressure, there is no need for a LWR-style containment building that can withstand the pressure increases.
3. Because it is a fast reactor, it has a much higher temperature output than a LWR it can support thermal storage with a simple heat exchanger. A LWR would require a large amount of lithium batteries to get the same function.
It also has much higher fuel burnup. More fuel burnup as an AP1000. That means less waste. Advantage of using fast neutrons. Some of the initial fuel will be created from recycled waste. You'll get around 50 GWd/t of waste generated with an AP 1000. The same output Terra power units will do 150GWd/t.
Walk away safe.
And it will be coupled with molten salt heat storage. That means:
1) it can fully load follow. Doubling its output for several hours at a time.
2) While load following it nonetheless operates at the same temperature continuously. Nothing changes at the reactor. This is a huge safety and efficiency improvement.
Not quite double. The Natrium reactor itself puts out 345 MWe steady, and with the molten salt thermal storage the plant output can reach 500 MWe for 5.5 hours. This equals roughly 650 MWhe of stored thermal energy. The plant output can decreased to 20% capacity (100 MWe) and then ramp up to full power in less than 8 minutes. The operating range and the speed it can ramp up is a massive leap over traditional LWR.
Natrium can also use a closed-loop fuel cycle. The Natrium core is the linear descendant of the IFR core which was designed around the integral fuel cycle.The IFR was designed to work as a set of 4-8 reactors around a common Electrometallurgical Treatment (EMT) process facility, which would recycle all the uranium and long-lived transuranics back into new fuel to be burnt.
Fast reactors are also 3-4x better at tritium generation. Unlocking tritium generation may be the key to unlocking fusion power as well. Tritium is one of the most valuable substances on earth (~$30,000 per gram) and the worldwide civilian production is 2 kg per year Canada. A set of 4x Natrium reactors should be able to produce ~8 to 16 kg per year. This could help offset the costs of nuclear and make electrical power cheaper for ratepayers.
The advantages of going this route are many. And the risks are pretty moderate.
Again, if we were talking about starting from scratch with a FOIC plant, I'd say go with the AP1000. But that is not exactly the situation here - you would be adding these plants behind the first Terra power plant, at the same site.
Your plants could start coming on-line as soon as 2030, if you order now.
I'm not convinced of the advantages of the AP1000, particularly for siting in Colorado. They have studied using air-cooling for the AP1000 and determined it wasn't possible without redesigning the turbine hall.
Like I say, the Terra power plant is under construction already, and will have a permit approved. If you change the power plant model, you restart the approval process, even if it is located at the same site as Terrapower. If an AP1000 was being built in Kemmerer I'd say build a second AP1000 and not Terra power.
If you build an identical plant at the same site, you avoid a lot of extra paperwork. You also gain the "learn by doing" upgrade to the process. You lower the procurement and O&M costs (say a consolidated waste storage are for all five plants?) This was how the Koreans got so efficient at building nuclear power plants - they had the same team going from site to site, building identical power plants. Permit streamlining and learn by doing can cut the $4 billion Terra power cost in half, easily. It then becomes an extremely cost-effective solution, especially since each plant will last 60 years.
Terrapower also has a potentially superior operating design with it's coupling of a molten salt storage unit with the reactor generating unit that integrates with variable resources by providing ramping, regulation, spinning reserve, etc. that provides multiple additional revenue streams to a generating unit in the marketplace versus the more limited offerings that a nuclear-only unit can offer. This also allows the reactor to operate at an optimal output versus current nuclear units that end-up operating sub-optimally or are dependent on exports if they are out of the money when variable generation is selling into the market.
SMRs can do well in industrial heat applications for chemicals and steel and other industrial applications requiring high temperatures to process the material.
Both sizes will do well in our industrial applications if we allow them.
... And relative to the AP 1000, the Natrium reactor is first of a kind. There will be inevitable problems and delays associated with being first of a kind, despite the best of plans.
I agree that SMRs vs large nuclear is a legitimate debate to have. The best answer we can give now is beset by the uncertainty of NRC. If they come up anytime soon with reasonable requirements for SMRs, construction would start on multiple approaches in much less than 7 years. My personal view is that in the long run, any of the top 4 SMR designs (don't ask) would prove more cost effective (because of inherent safety features) than large nuclear. FWIW.
Your lead: The Big Question on Nuclear Facing Colorado: What will it cost, how long will it take?
I've got a question that needs to be answered first: who makes the decisions on what power production should look like? Are you trying to convince one or more utility companies? People in state government? A wealth billionaire not currently involved in producing electricity?
And others, closely related: Who takes the risks (financial AND safety)? Who pays (and when)? And who benefits from the payments?
There is an opportunity with SMRs. Terrapower is already broken ground on a SMR in Kemmerer Wyoming. Crazy thought - build four more, at the same location. That is 1.4 GW more energy. It would cost <$12 billion (likely $6 billion). Each plant would be identical to the one currently under construction.
Why?
From a regulatory perspective, once one plant has had its design approved, what's the difference between having two plants? Or five? Permits should be a snap. There are no NIMBY issues - that has already been resolved, right? It also makes management of the plants simple, since the same employees can work at any plant. Lots of your O&M costs would decrease - for example you could have common security with all plants. You'd also learn by doing - the first plant makes all the mistakes, but the same workforce, now wiser, means the subsequent builds will proceed smoothly. And Kemmerer isn't that far from Colorado. Transmission could be managed and wouldn't be that costly. You'd be upgrading existing lines. AND this is fully flexible output since energy storage is integrated into the system, meaning you can fully manage wind and solar inputs. Thes plants are fully load following.
All those arguments should hold for the existing AP1000 and APR-1400 plants then.
The AP1000 and APR-1400 are very different from the Natrium reactors.
1. Natrium is a metal cooled fast reactor. This gives very high energy densities. The core is roughly 1 meter cubed. This results in much smaller reactor buildings, which should be faster to build
2. Natrium operates at atmospheric pressure. There are no heavy forgings or pressure piping to manufacture. Because there is no pressure, there is no need for a LWR-style containment building that can withstand the pressure increases.
3. Because it is a fast reactor, it has a much higher temperature output than a LWR it can support thermal storage with a simple heat exchanger. A LWR would require a large amount of lithium batteries to get the same function.
It also has much higher fuel burnup. More fuel burnup as an AP1000. That means less waste. Advantage of using fast neutrons. Some of the initial fuel will be created from recycled waste. You'll get around 50 GWd/t of waste generated with an AP 1000. The same output Terra power units will do 150GWd/t.
Walk away safe.
And it will be coupled with molten salt heat storage. That means:
1) it can fully load follow. Doubling its output for several hours at a time.
2) While load following it nonetheless operates at the same temperature continuously. Nothing changes at the reactor. This is a huge safety and efficiency improvement.
Not quite double. The Natrium reactor itself puts out 345 MWe steady, and with the molten salt thermal storage the plant output can reach 500 MWe for 5.5 hours. This equals roughly 650 MWhe of stored thermal energy. The plant output can decreased to 20% capacity (100 MWe) and then ramp up to full power in less than 8 minutes. The operating range and the speed it can ramp up is a massive leap over traditional LWR.
Natrium can also use a closed-loop fuel cycle. The Natrium core is the linear descendant of the IFR core which was designed around the integral fuel cycle.The IFR was designed to work as a set of 4-8 reactors around a common Electrometallurgical Treatment (EMT) process facility, which would recycle all the uranium and long-lived transuranics back into new fuel to be burnt.
Fast reactors are also 3-4x better at tritium generation. Unlocking tritium generation may be the key to unlocking fusion power as well. Tritium is one of the most valuable substances on earth (~$30,000 per gram) and the worldwide civilian production is 2 kg per year Canada. A set of 4x Natrium reactors should be able to produce ~8 to 16 kg per year. This could help offset the costs of nuclear and make electrical power cheaper for ratepayers.
The advantages of going this route are many. And the risks are pretty moderate.
Again, if we were talking about starting from scratch with a FOIC plant, I'd say go with the AP1000. But that is not exactly the situation here - you would be adding these plants behind the first Terra power plant, at the same site.
Your plants could start coming on-line as soon as 2030, if you order now.
I'm not convinced of the advantages of the AP1000, particularly for siting in Colorado. They have studied using air-cooling for the AP1000 and determined it wasn't possible without redesigning the turbine hall.
Not exactly.
Like I say, the Terra power plant is under construction already, and will have a permit approved. If you change the power plant model, you restart the approval process, even if it is located at the same site as Terrapower. If an AP1000 was being built in Kemmerer I'd say build a second AP1000 and not Terra power.
If you build an identical plant at the same site, you avoid a lot of extra paperwork. You also gain the "learn by doing" upgrade to the process. You lower the procurement and O&M costs (say a consolidated waste storage are for all five plants?) This was how the Koreans got so efficient at building nuclear power plants - they had the same team going from site to site, building identical power plants. Permit streamlining and learn by doing can cut the $4 billion Terra power cost in half, easily. It then becomes an extremely cost-effective solution, especially since each plant will last 60 years.
Terrapower also has a potentially superior operating design with it's coupling of a molten salt storage unit with the reactor generating unit that integrates with variable resources by providing ramping, regulation, spinning reserve, etc. that provides multiple additional revenue streams to a generating unit in the marketplace versus the more limited offerings that a nuclear-only unit can offer. This also allows the reactor to operate at an optimal output versus current nuclear units that end-up operating sub-optimally or are dependent on exports if they are out of the money when variable generation is selling into the market.
Natural gas to nuclear
N2N
Robert Bryce
Go big, APR-1400, AP-1000
Build them all and keep going!
SMRs can do well in industrial heat applications for chemicals and steel and other industrial applications requiring high temperatures to process the material.
Both sizes will do well in our industrial applications if we allow them.
Have to get over the fear factor.
... And relative to the AP 1000, the Natrium reactor is first of a kind. There will be inevitable problems and delays associated with being first of a kind, despite the best of plans.
I agree that SMRs vs large nuclear is a legitimate debate to have. The best answer we can give now is beset by the uncertainty of NRC. If they come up anytime soon with reasonable requirements for SMRs, construction would start on multiple approaches in much less than 7 years. My personal view is that in the long run, any of the top 4 SMR designs (don't ask) would prove more cost effective (because of inherent safety features) than large nuclear. FWIW.