Study: The potential and challenges of microreactor technology
S. Himmelstein | August 11, 2021The deployment of microreactors in the short-to-medium term could support energy markets not available to large nuclear plants, but some significant challenges must be overcome to capture new market shares. In the longer term, these systems will be able to contribute to decarbonization efforts, according to an assessment conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
Potential deployment of this subset of small modular reactors of 1-20 MWe capacity, which includes light water, molten salt, gas-cooled, metal-cooled fast and heat pipe reactors, in 63 nations was evaluated for the 2030-2050 timeframe. By 2030, initial deployments of these systems could potentially expand the nuclear contribution in North America and Western Europe, areas that would otherwise show low future nuclear growth.
Mid-term deployments beginning around 2035 could see expansion in Eastern Europe and Asia, where energy infrastructures are under development, and to support new nuclear markets in emerging economies. Feasible deployments during 2040-2050 could target urban markets and megacities lacking access to energy and susceptible to climate change. Microreactors could also be of value for disaster relief by replacing portable diesel generators and for fostering low-carbon shipping operations.
Microreactor top-down global projection (GWe capacity). Source: INL
Consideration of low carbon scenarios suggests that microreactors could contribute to closing the gap on zero carbon by 2050 by replacing fossil sources for electric and non-electric uses and assisting the transition to renewable energy sources. Filling these gaps could require hundreds of microreactor units by 2040 and thousands by 2050. Remaining technology challenges encompass staffing, surveillance and fuel security issues and cyber risks since remote and semi-autonomous use are positioning nuclear generation for novel settings.
Make them now, the world is already on fire.
Make them safe, safe enough to place in the company president's front yard.
Make the electricity free, we're running out of time to depend on profits.
In reply to #1
Yes. And make the spent rods be stored on site until they decay to a safe level. And have an escrow account to pay for this storage.
The issues of safety are addressed as part of the design basis on most SMRs and certainly on all the Molten Salt designs. These are "walk-away" fail-safe. This means that they can be disconnected from external power and control at any point in the operation envelope and they will simply self-regulate to a safe, stable state.
The issues around "fuel rods" are non-existent for MSR designs since there are none. The fuel required for criticality is dissolved in the molten salt coolant. Additionally, most designs in the "Micro" power band have no fuel access on-site in any case; the entire "hot" module is sealed and delivered with the fuel for 20 to 30 years operation in place. After that the module is switched out and taken to the maker for full overhaul and re-refining of the coolant/fuel. By the way, one of the fuels under study is Thorium (Google or Wiki-search: LIFTR) (as opposed to Uranium or others) which, because it cannot be weaponised, is inherently not a risk in terms of proliferation.
The hacking risk is similarly present only at the level of, for example, turning the systems on and off. The configuration of the hardware simply does not allow the units to be forced into a potentially dangerous state. The worst-case for MSR's is that the liquid fuel/coolant overheats and melts a drain plug that is kept artificially cooled. This drains the fuel/coolant into a tank where a "poison" chemical is held which stops the heat-producing reaction.
Given all the "Red Flags" that are dropping lately, SMRs, and MSRs in particular, SHOULD be the object of targeted accelerated-developm
The really sad thing is that all this was actually built and tested in the 60's. It was shut down when a strategic decision was made to restrict nuclear to large PWR reactors using enriched uranium fuels. This decision was largely driven by "National Security" interests and was underpinned by the military's need for a nuclear fuel processing industry to provide highly enriched Uranium and eventually Plutonium for nuclear weapons.
In reply to #3
OK. Are you saying that at the end of the useful life of this reactor, there isn't ANY waste to be stored? With these, the many years of storage of spent nuclear fuel doesn't exist? If so, I'll promote them. With the need for water, there's going to be a lot of nuclear power plants getting sea water and making it potable. It's already started. The wastes from these plants poses a threat to the world. You are the first to state the MSR designs don't have nuclear wastes. Usually, the new nuclear designs state they minimize the waste. Minimizing the waste means it will build up more slowly over the years-like, 50000 years!!
Remains unproven that these machines are passively fail-safe nor have they been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The technical and operational issues are legion and have also not been proven as resolved.
In general, economic competitiveness lies with bigger and more efficient. The micro-reactors are going in exactly the opposite direction.