Proposal for a Princeton Small Modular Reactor

Nov. 9, 2011

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

But our net carbon emissions increase whenever its running. It saves money and energy but not carbon.

New Jerseys Sources of Electricity

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

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

Over half of NJs electric power comes from nuclear energy.

Carbon Emissions
Emissions by fuel: Coal: 2.1 pounds/KWh Oil: 1.9 pounds/KWh Gas: 1.3 pounds/KWh Nuclear: 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 turbines 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

A Small Modular Reactor 70 MW thermal, 25-MWe generating capacity Underground installation 7-15 year life without refueling

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 universitys 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, PRINCOs 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.

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 1970s and 1980s. 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 largescale reactor If the unit fails, no fuel exposure and no radiation release. Financial loss only.

Safety Considerations (3)

From the companys 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.

Gen4s 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, Govt Relations/Policy

20 years at DOE 4 years at NRC Responsible for Hanford site environmental cleanup Managed DOEs 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 Pecalas and Robert Socolows 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 fullscale 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