Small Modular R Reactors t and d th the Nuclear Renaissance

Daniel Ingersoll

Oak Ridge National Laboratory ingersolldt@ornl.gov

Young Engineers and Scientists Symposium 2011 January 10-12, 2011

The first commercial power plants were small prototypes y

Vallicetos 5 MWe 1957

Dresden 1 200 MWe 1960

Shippingport 60 MWe 1957

2 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

Commercial nuclear power plants escalated rapidly in size during the 70s
1400 1200

Electrica al Output (M MWe)

1000

800

600

U.S. plant construction d i th during the fi first t nuclear l era

400

200

0 1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Date of Initial Operation

3 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

Small modular reactor (SMR) designs first emerged in the 1970s and 1980s
Initially motivated by optimism for nuclear power Later motivated by lessons learned from initial plant challenges Main findings of 1985 Weinberg study:*
Large light-water light water reactors pose very low risk to the public but high risk to the investor Large reactors are difficult to operate: complex and finicky Small inherently safe (highly forgiving) designs are possible if they can be made economically
*A. M. Weinberg, et al, The Second Nuclear Era, Praeger Publishers, 1985
4 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

Interest in SMRs is reemerging

Enabled by excellent performance of existing fleet of large nuclear plants Motivated by carbon emission, emission energy security security, and financing concerns Key Benefits
Reduced capital cost Competitive power costs (hopefully) Smaller incremental capacity p y addition to match power p demand and growth rate Domestic supply chain Enhanced safety and robustness from simplified designs Enhanced security from below-grade siting Adaptable to a broader range of energy needs More flexible siting g (access, ( , water impacts, p , seismic, , etc.) )
5 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

Meeting the national GhG reduction goal will require heroic efforts g
7000

2005 U.S. CO2 Emissions (Tg)

6000

5000

Electricity

Solution: 1. Pursue all clean energy gy technologies 2. Extend nuclear energy to more energy markets

4000

3000 Transportation 2000 Industrial 1000 Residential Commercial Misc

2050 Goal

0
6

Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

Deliberately small designs share a common safety y philosophy y

Eliminate potential accident initiators if possible
EXAMPLE: Integral system to eliminate large pipe loss-of-coolant accident

Reduce probability of an accident occurring

EXAMPLE: Lower radiation exposure of reactor vessel reduces likelihood of pressurized thermal shock accident

Mitigate g consequences q of p potential accidents

EXAMPLE: Increased volume of primary coolant slows down heat-up transient
7 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

Integral Design: Simple and Robust

Loop-type Primary System
Steam Generator Pressurizer Control Rod Drive P Pressurizer i Control Rod Drive

Integral Primary System

Pump

Steam Generator

Pump Core Core Co e

Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. LWR-based SMR designs for electricity generation

Pressurization Volume Containment Vessel

Steam generator coils

Reactor Vessel

Control Rod Drive Mechanisms Steam Generator Reactor coolant pumps p p Reactor Core DHRS heat exchangers

Core

TBD (W (Westinghouse) ti h )

mPower P (Babcock (B b k & Wil Wilcox) )

NuScale (NuScale)

tbd MWe
9 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

125 MWe

45 MWe

Demonstrating the M in SMR is a key y to economic viability y

4-Module (500 MWe) mPower Plant

12-Module ( (540 MWe) ) NuScale Plant

10 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

Gas-cooled reactor designs can provide high-temperature process heat

MHR ( (General Atomics) )

PBMR ( (Westinghouse) g )

ANTARES ( (Areva) )

280 MWe
11 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

250 MWe

275 MWe

Fast spectrum reactor designs can provide improved fuel cycles

PRISM ( (General Electric) )

TWR ( (TerraPower) )

EM2 ( (General Atomics) )

311 MWe
12 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

TBD MWe

100 MWe

SMR Challenges Technical

LWR-based designs have some degree of innovation
Integral primary system configuration Internal control rod drive mechanisms and pumps (some) Multiplexed control systems

Non-LWR systems will have additional R&D needs needs, e.g. eg

Long-lived fuels with more diverse compositions High-temperature and radiation-resistant materials

Sensors, instrumentation and controls development are important for near-term and advanced designs, e.g.
Power and flow monitoring in integral/pool systems Advance prognostics and diagnostics for remote operations Control systems for process heat/co-generation plants

13

Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

SMR Challenges Institutional

Market competition vs. design standardization Mindset for large, centralized plants
Fixation on economy-of-scale Concern for nuclear hassle factors Perceived risk factors for nuclear plants

Traditional focus of regulators on large, LWR plants

Standard St d d 10-mile 10 il radius di EPZ (in (i the th U.S.) US) Staffing and security force size Plant vs module licensing

Fear of first-of-a-kind
Need to demonstrate new designs g and new business model
14 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

Bottom Line
SMRs can extend clean and abundant nuclear power to a wider range of energy demands g g SMR designs g are Emerging based on decades of experience Several technical and institutional challenges must be solved and demonstrated
If commercially successful, SMRs would significantly expand the options for nuclear power and its applications. - Steven Chu, Wall Street Journal, 3/23/10
15 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy