Glatfelter and DreamWeaver International partner to develop and manufacture lithium-ion battery separators
Petrobras joining DIBANET biofuels consortium; diesel miscible biofuels from biomass

DOE to award up to $266M to small modular nuclear reactor project; targeting commercial operation around 2025

Mpower
DOE selected an SMR project with the B&W mPower reactor in 2012. The nuclear core and steam generators are integrated in a single vessel. Source: B&W. Click to enlarge.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) issued a new funding opportunity announcement (DE-FOA-0000800) for up to $266 million to help US industry design and certify innovative small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs)—defined for this FOA as reactor units with nominal output of 300 megawatts electric (MWe) or less that are able to be factory fabricated and transported to the site for assembly of components and operation. With a 50% cost-share, total funding for the selected project will be around $462 million.

DOE will solicit proposals for cost-shared SMR projects that have the potential to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and achieve commercial operation around 2025, while offering innovative and effective solutions for enhanced safety, operations and performance. Selected projects will span a five-year period with at least 50% provided by private industry.

The scope of this FOA focuses on SMR designs (that provide unique and innovative features that can serve to improve nuclear safety, operability, efficiency, economics, security, and performance over existing plants and previously certified nuclear plant designs.

These SMRs should be designed to reduce core damage frequency, increase post-accident coping periods, provide features and characteristics that minimize the release of radionuclides under severe accident conditions, maximize resistance to hazards presented by natural phenomena, and present a credible case to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reduce emergency preparedness zone requirements.

The designs should provide diverse and redundant safety systems that include capabilities and design features that aid in managing the consequences of severe accidents similar to the Fukushima events. This may include ability to effectively deal with off-site power loss, ability to augment cooling water reservoirs from external sources, incorporating air and water sampling capabilities, or other innovative instrumentation and diagnostics that support accident management.

Under this cost-shared partnership, DOE intends to award a cooperative agreement(s) to support first-of-a-kind engineering (FOAKE) development, experiments, analysis, and other work to progress the design toward completion and culminates in the approval of design certification applications by the NRC, including work associated with the resolution of NRC requests for additional information during the review process.

In April 2012, DOE issued an FOA to support cost-share development of SMR development. (Earlier post.) Building off the cost-share agreement announced in November 2012 with a project led by Babcock & Wilcox (earlier post), this follow-on solicitation is open to other companies and manufacturers and is focused on furthering small modular reactor efficiency, operations and design.

The Babcock & Wilcox-led project is intended to accelerate commercialization of a small modular reactor design that targets a 2022 deployment date. Under that agreement, DOE will share costs on the design, certification and licensing of the B&W mPower small modular reactor design, with B&W providing at least 50% of the total cost. The Tennessee Valley Authority plans to deploy two 180 MW small modular reactor units for commercial operation in Roane County, Tennessee, by 2021, with as many as six mPower units at that site.

Subject to congressional appropriations, federal funding for this solicitation and the project announced last year will be derived from a total $452 million identified for the Department’s Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support program.

Small modular reactors—approximately one-third the size of current nuclear power plants—have compact, scalable designs that are expected to offer a host of safety, construction and economic benefits. The Energy Department is seeking 300 MW or smaller reactor designs that can be made in factories and transported to sites where they would be ready to “plug and play” upon arrival.

The smaller size reduces both capital costs and construction times and also makes these reactors ideal for small electric grids and for locations that cannot support large reactors.

Comments

Herm

Much easier to install/build 3-4 of these units instead of a monster present day unit.. and bury them in a concrete and stainless steel pit that can be flooded with water in case the need arises..

HarveyD

Will all those $$$M + end of life clean up cost, be added to the real cost of nuclear power sites?

Nick Lyons

I hope NuScale wins this round. They use completely passive coolant circulation and require no electric power to shut down safely. Also, their minimum power level is 45mW, putting the 'Small' in SMR. See:

http://www.nuscalepower.com/

Dollared

Wow, and people thought Solyndra was a scam.

DaveD

Dollard,
This is not some "green energy scam" or a "liberal program" or anything like that. This is trying to get the US Nuclear program back into gear with new designs that are already being used in different places around the world.

It's really the only cost effective way to do nuclear and the US has gotten way behind while we've essentially had regulatory freezes on everything.

If you don't like nuclear, that is a different discussion and you can start a protest or write a letter to your congressmen or something. But Solyndra? What the hell does that have to do with anything here?

TexasDesert

These cost sharing agreements are hostile to start-up companies because you gotta have money to get money. This is a money waster that just feeds the existing large nuclear industry players.

Better bang for the money if the labs get funding for basic nuclear research.

HarveyD

After 27 years of very costly service, we closed our only Candu Nuclear site 2 months ago. Getting ride of all the contaminated pieces will take 50+ years and will cost $10+B.

This was not a very good business deal?

Currently, our Hydro plants can produce more than 80 Candu and installed Wind is producing the equivalent of about 5 Candu and going up.

The combined Hydro/Wind production cost is about 1/4 those of new or over hauled Candu's without pushing radiation hazards and heavy repair and end of normal life cost on the next generations.

Nick Lyons

@HarveyD: The point of SMRs is to address the shortcomings of huge nuclear installations, namely:

* Modular, standardized factory construction
* Shorter build times
* Incremental installation
* Smaller footprint

All of these reduce time to build and generate revenue, reducing project risks and financing costs. The huge, bespoke nuclear plants of the past are so 20th century...

dursun

Here we go again, Obama is picking winners instead of the Market

TexasDesert

Here is some information about Babcock & Wilcox, the only winner thus far. Its market cap is $3.14 billion. Its proposed technology is the light water reactor. We had light water reactors for over 30 years, and all we can get out of this effort is a smaller version.

Light water reactors were originally deployed as very large plants to improve operational efficiency. A smaller light water reactor may lose some of that gained efficiency.

Some of the Gen4 possibilities were supposed to have higher efficiency at lower plant sizes, but we won't have any Gen4's in the competition given this set of rules.

This effort is all about the care and feeding of the existing nuclear industry players.

Davemart

The usual nonsense from the anti nuclear crowd.
Deaths in Europe from air pollution caused by coal are put at around 18,000 per year.
In India they are around 100,000.

And nuclear is supposed to be 'too risky' when coal causes a holocaust every year in its normal operation.

But of course opponents want to run the whole world economy on unicorn farts and sunshine, regardless of whether it is sunny when it is needed or not.

The news for fantasists is that the estimated cost of switching to renewables for Germany alone is $1.3 trillion, enough to build nuclear plants to run everything there and to have spare change to give $30,000 each towards buying electric vehicles.

Meanwhile Germany is building coal plants and emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases and lethal air pollution, all because they are in thrall to fantasy solutions.

Grow up.

Kit P

“Much easier to install/build 3-4 ”

Of course that is not true. The advantage of nuclear is that is scales very well. A 10% increase the in size results in a 33% increase in power output.

When building a power any power plant it is not the few years of grief you get building it but the 60 years of operating that is important. Nuke do not need a 100 rail cars of coal delivered every day. Each nuke has six high paid reactor operators per unit. The pay is the same if they are producing 250 MWh or 1600 MWe each hour.

Kit P

“It's really the only cost effective way to do nuclear and the US has gotten way behind while we've essentially had regulatory freezes on everything. ”

The US is the undisputed leader in nuclear power. Second place is not even close. What has changed in the last 40 years is that everybody has gotten better and there is more world competition. There is no regulatory freeze.

“a scam ”

It is hard to see the logic is SMR or PV panels on the roofs of houses. I do not see the market for SMR. The only reason to build a smaller reactor is that you do not need the power. If you only need a small amount of power build a biomass plant or stick with coal. SMR might have a market in small developing counties but nuclear power is not for beginners.

“The usual nonsense from the anti nuclear crowd. ”

Followed by the usual nonsense of the anti-coal crowd.

“lethal air pollution ”

Coal plants do not produce lethal pollution. Does Davemart even know what lethal means.

For those worried about coal, the solution is not to reduce coal a teaspoon at time but to build 1600 MWe reactor that will last hundreds of years.

Kit P


For the visual learners.
First Nuclear Concrete - Photo 17
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scegnews/8549047203/in/photostream

As a matter of disclosure I have no association with this project but can respect the accomplishments of competition.

Bob Wallace

2025

Well before 2020 wind should be about 3c/kWh and PV solar about 5c/kWh (or less).

It's likely we'll have inexpensive storage as well long before 2020.

How many of these things does one have to build before economies of scale kick in? It's about 500,000 for EVs.

And if new nuclear (very optimistically) could be brought to market for 11c/kWh how exactly would this stuff compete? How does building little reactors, fighting community resistance, and furnishing technicians/security for many small sites cost out to be competitive?

Sorry. Fails the smell test....

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)