Advanced Nuclear Reactors
Response to Union of Concerned Scientists
Advanced isn’t always better, but that’s no reason to burn down the library
Review of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) publication: ‘Advanced Isn’t Always Better, Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors’. Reviewed by Kurt Smithpeters 07 June 2022
Figure: Advanced Nuclear Reactors operating or being constructed. Sodium Fast Reactor (SFR), High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR), Molten Salt Reactor (MSR), Light Water Small Modular Reactor (LW-SMR).
In March 2021 Edwin Lyman and the UCS published an assessment of new types of nuclear energy technology which are also known as ‘Generation IV’ (Gen 4) or ‘Advanced Nuclear Reactors’ (ANR).
Most existing nuclear power plants are the type ‘Light Water Reactor’ (LWR) that use water for coolant, while most advanced reactors use other coolants such as sodium, helium, or salt. The result of different coolants is that the heat-producing atomic chain reaction or ‘fission’ behaves differently, with potential benefits of producing more energy cheaper with fewer hazards. Smaller reactor vessels using water or non water coolant will allow nuclear power plants to be built in automated factories and installed with drilling machines, hence lowering construction cost and reducing defects.
The UCS paper surveys the literature of past and present developers of ANR technology – the foremost advocates and experts – and describes ANR concepts and the technical research underway.
Neither the nuclear engineers nor UCS have found a technical impasse with any of the ANR design concepts. Yet the paper concludes the cost and hazard is so high and benefit so little that all development must be stopped. According to the UCS paper ‘The DOE should suspend the advanced reactor demonstration program…Congress should require that an independent, transparent, peer-review panel direct all DOE R&D on new nuclear concepts…immediately assess…nuclear terrorism implications…address…the security and safeguards needed…The United States should make all new reactors and associated fuel facilities eligible for IAEA [international] safeguards and…verification activities.’ (UCS Advanced Isn’t Always Better, p 11)
‘Torch the library to stop dangerous ideas from spreading!’
It’s a strange time to clamp down on energy research – amidst a climate emergency, decaying electricity grids, and 20% of the world gridless, subsisting on brush, charcoal, and dung. How could the community of nuclear engineers and the UCS engineers review the same practice and literature and come to opposite conclusions?
The UCS paper is right that not all technical visions come true. But the nuclear community is also right that continued technical experimentation will separate the wheat from the chaff, the kilowatts from the PowerPoint. This poses an important question: Are the benefits from ANR large enough and the technical feasibility near enough to warrant investment? This is a vital determination for every decarbonization technology.
The UCS paper examines ANR safety, fuel consumption (sustainability), and weapon proliferation control. Lots of math applied in some offbeat excursions. The number of arguments evokes a feeling that there are just too many obstacles, even though the paper does not flatly rule out any of the ANR benefits. These UCS facts and interpretations are reviewed below. We will see that the fission process is being reengineered to remove several hazards inherent to LWR, reduce uranium mining and disposal, and create new inherent barriers to weapon proliferation. These and other advances indicate a high potential for ANR to expand nuclear deployment more widely and decarbonize sectors using fossil fuels today.
The factual descriptions in the UCS paper indicate normal engineering to mature technology proceeding through stages of demonstration. These facts should give every confidence in this technical activity. The civil public should engage ANR engineering reports with critical examination, learning, and dialogue. The UCS paper presents no plausible reason to stop research and development of the decarbonization potential of Advanced Nuclear Reactors.
Recent disruptions of electricity grids and energy trade have prompted India, Poland, and France to initiate serial build of nuclear power plants. Good start but the energy challenge will not be met without technology bringing down nuclear construction cost. Higher output temperature from reactors is required to competitively manufacture materials such as steel, cement, hydrogen, and desalinated water. (The UCS article does not address these two drivers of ANR: construction cost and industrial heat.) Placing reactors in industrial parks and additional countries will also require new technology with fewer inherent safety risks and more inherent obstacles to weapon proliferation.
The BN-800 commercial scale Advanced Nuclear Reactor power plant in Zarechny Russia reached full power in 2016 and a dozen countries are operating or committed to construct ANR. Interesting in their technical explorations today, the potential for these reactors to widely distribute nuclear energy will become more important if energy demand increases. New needs could emerge simultaneously: Electrify and provide direct heat to new sectors (material manufacturing, heating, transportation, desalination), power more cloud servers, and build electricity grids in gridless regions. Hydroelectric and natural gas can forego coal and cut global Green House Gas (GHG) emission by a quarter or half, but the compact density of nuclear infrastructure is needed to continue scaling up energy capacity without degrading habitat and climate.
Get the full review in pdf:
Contents of the attached review:
Five Arguments Made Against Research
Design for Safety
Long Term Development of Fuel Breeding
Containing Weapon Material Source within the Energy Facility
Disrupting the Nuclear Commercial-Regulatory Complex with Super Competition
Distributing Frontier Jobs
thanks. We are working on an update. the same key technical issues are still proceeding through exploration and trial. however investment is increasing and there is more experience with various commercialization efforts that are now proceeding along 3 main thrusts: software application to construction, advanced fission cycles, and restarting prematurely retired plants. political contention is shifting from whether to develop fission, to what broader agenda fission development should be framed in, such as DOE public-private partnership, utility payment reform, or alternate flavors of protectionist / industrial policy waste on obsolete domains.
Great article. Full of hard-to-find information on nuclear energy.