Princeton Micro Reactor

Proposal for a PrincetonSmall Modular Reactor

Nov. 9, 2011

Princeton Has a Cogeneration Plant for Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

But our net carbon emissions increase whenever it’s running. It saves money and energy – but not carbon.

New Jersey’s Sources of Electricity

Over half of NJ’s electric power comes from nuclear energy.

coal: 9.0 million MWH = 14.0%oil: 0.3 million MWHgas: 20.8 million MWH = 32.4%other: 1.7 million MWH

Nuclear: 32.3 million MWH = 50.4%__________________________________total: 64.1 million MWH (2008 figures)

Carbon Emissions

Emissions by fuel:

Coal: 2.1 pounds/KWhOil: 1.9 pounds/KWhGas: 1.3 pounds/KWhNuclear: zero

NJ weighted average:

0.75 pounds/KWh

The Cogeneration Plant is gas-fired. Each kilowatt generated produces 0.55 pounds/KWh more carbon than the state average for purchased electricity.

This is at least partly offset by using the thermal energy in the gas turbine’s exhaust to make steam. The steam is used directly for heat, and used in steam-powered chillers for A/C in the summer.

How will we get the undetermined 25%?

• Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

– Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)

Gen4 Energy Module

Underground installation 7-15 year life without refueling

70 MW thermal, 25-MWe generating capacity

A Small Modular Reactor

The Environmental Case

• Over ten years, the choice is between:

– A football-sized lump of radioactive waste, or

– A million tons of CO2

How Much CO2 Is A Million Tons?

Imagine a block of dry ice (frozen CO2) the size of a football field and as tall as the outer wall of Princeton Stadium.

A million tons is about 5 such blocks.

Making Steam Emits More CO2 Than Generating Electricity

Nuclear CHP

• Poor electricity thermal efficiency (~ 36%) due to small temperature difference

• Exhaust steam from electricity generation used for heating

• Need 15 MWe on average (42 MWt, 60% capacity)

• Assume recovery of waste steam adds 30% to overall thermal efficiency (contributes 12.6 MWt to steam)

Savings from Nuclear CHP

• FY09: 690 million pounds of steam total• 1000 cu ft of natural gas costs about $8 and generates

779 pounds of steam• Estimated savings: $7.1 million• 15 MWe at about 7cts/KWh = $9.2 million• Assume 28 MWt needed for steam on average

– 12.6 MWt from recovered waste heat– 15.4 MWt additional from reactor– (42 + 15.4) = 57.4 = 82% of 70 MWt capacity– Predicted fuel life (10/.82) = 12 years

Total savings: $16.3 million/year for 12 years

Giant Project, Small Benefit

Princeton is installing a huge solar array. 27 acres, 17,000 solar panels, roughly $30-40 million – for a net savings of 5.5% of the university’s energy consumption.

The Financial Case

• The right column is the solar array. Annual savings of $1M derived from press release.

• Nuclear CHP generates an internal rate of return of nearly 16%, while the solar array has a negative return (in financial terms, before considering subsidies)

• For comparison, PRINCO’s 2010 average return was 14.7%. The project is financially attractive without subsidies, even before valuing the huge CO2 reduction

The Technology

• Very small sealed unit (height 2.5 meters, diameter 1.5 meters), truck transportable, fits in a standard NRC certified shipping cask.

• 10-year operating life without on-site refueling at rated power. Entire unit returned to factory for refueling. Load following, flexible output.

• 70 MW thermal, 25 MW electric• Primary loop working fluid is lead/bismuth eutectic (LBE):

MP 124 C, BP 1670 C• “Fast” neutron spectrum

– Efficient use of fuel, fissions U-238– Pu-239 does not accumulate, “burned” as fast as it is generated– Spent fuel about 1/3 the radiotoxicity of LWR spent fuel

Practical Considerations

• “An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics:

– It is simple. It is small. It is cheap. It is light. It can be built very quickly. It is very flexible in purpose. Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.

• … a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics:

– It is being built now. It is behind schedule. It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. It is very expensive. It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. It is large. It is heavy. It is complicated.”

Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, “Father of the Nuclear Navy”, 1953

LBE Reactors In The Real World• Russian Navy used LBE reactors in their Alfa-class submarines in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Hyperion draws on 80 reactor-years of real-world experience, plus 30 more years of advances in materials science.

• Known drawbacks and their counterarguments:

• Requires higher enrichment (~19% U-235 vs. 3-5% for LWR)

• still below regulatory definition of “highly enriched” @ 20%

• Corrosion effects of molten lead

• Use lower temperatures

• LBE oxygen content must be carefully controlled

• Neutron activation of Bi produces Po-210

• Intense alpha emitter (like radon and Am-241), 138-day half-life, used in smoke detectors and anti-static devices

• Primary loop must stay within containment vessel

• Unlike radon, solid at room temperature (MP 254C, BP 962C)

• Activity declines 6 orders of magnitude within 8 years

Safety Considerations

• All major accidents to date caused by loss of coolant (LOC) in water-cooled reactors

• Large difference between LBE melting and boiling points (1546 C vs. 100 C for H20)

• LBE is inert against air, water, fuel, concrete• Containment vessel is small, completely

underground, highly secure• Atmospheric pressure, no pumps to fail.

Passive circulation by convection – think of it as “artificial geothermal”

Safety Considerations (2)

• Sealed unit, transported intact and returned for refueling at central factory. Fuel is never exposed on site.

• Fuel cladding inert in water – no hydrogen generation (Fukushima explosion)

• Power level 1/40th of conventional large-scale reactor

• If the unit fails, no fuel exposure and no radiation release. Financial loss only.

Safety Considerations (3)

• From the company’s web site:– In the event of failure, a backup decay heat removal

system provides natural circulation of LBE through a fixed bypass path in the core.  Water from an emergency cooling tank is gravity-sprayed onto the exterior surface of the HPM reactor, and heat is removed by passive vaporization of water.  Provides adequate cooling for up to two weeks without external power or operator action.

– For Princeton, the TES could be the emergency water source.

Safety Considerations (4)

• Threat of sabotage or terrorist attack:– Underground location greatly reduces vulnerability– Designed for unattended operation – no refueling, no

routine maintenance– Therefore, seal the entrance so it is inaccessible

without heavy equipment. Make unobserved entry impossible.

– Eliminates the need for ongoing security force.– Terror attacks depend on surprise and speed. If it

takes many hours with heavy gear to uncover the reactor vault, it will not be an attractive target.

Gen4’s Board Chair:The Honourable Lady Barbara Judge

•Dual US/UK citizenship

•J.D. from NYU, 2nd out of 323

•1980: Youngest ever SEC commissioner

•2004-2010: Chair, UK Atomic Energy Authority

•CBE 2010

CEO: Bob Prince

• Naval Nuclear Engineer

• Wharton MBA

• Former CEO of Duratek, Inc (developer of radwaste vitrification technology)

• 40 years in the nuclear industry

Willis Bixby, Gov’t Relations/Policy

• 20 years at DOE• 4 years at NRC• Responsible for Hanford site environmental

cleanup• Managed DOE’s office for TMI cleanup• Developed vitrification process with Bob

Prince

Major Issues Are Political and Regulatory, Not Technology

• Why Princeton?

– Strong history of forward-looking innovation in the Facilities Department

– One of Stephen Pecala’s and Robert Socolow’s iconic “Stabilization Wedges” is nuclear. Thus Princeton is uniquely qualified to argue against unreasoning fear of nuclear fission.

– Unique potential resource: the only member of Congress who has worked on nuclear power (at Princeton Plasma Physics Lab)

NIMBY Nation

• Local opposition (NIMBY)

• Organized, committed national opposition– Princeton is institutionally allergic to negative

publicity

• NRC “regulatory hole”– Too big for a research reactor (10MWt limit)– 40x smaller than a full-scale power reactor– Regulatory structure designed around full-

scale LWR, not appropriate for small modular reactors

Start the Debate Now

• First reactor to be built at Savannah River, going critical in 2016

• It will take a decade of persistent argument to persuade the public if a Princeton reactor is to become reality 8-10 years later.

• How better than with a concrete proposal for a modular reactor on campus?

Thank you for listening