Sunday, June 28, 2009

GE-Hitachi briefs Congress on PRISM reactor

Objective is to turn spent nuclear fuel into an asset

ANLWestPRISM is GE’s proprietary name for the Integral Fast Reactor, a design that was developed in Idaho by the nuclear scientists at Argonne West (ANL-W), a field office for Argonne National Laboratory located on the Arco desert 26 miles west of Idaho Falls, ID. In 2005 ANL-W was merged with the Idaho National Laboratory (INL)

There has been a a series of coincidental developments in the past two weeks that brought this technology into the spotlight.

Eric Loewen, who worked on reactor designs for sodium cooled reactors (large graphic) in Idaho, and now is a senior scientist with GE-Hitachi (GEH) in Wilmington, NC, talked with the news media about the technology last week.

At the same time, Lisa Price, a senior VP at GE Hitachi, testified before the House Science and Technology Committee encouraging lawmakers to support R&D needed to complete the technology for recycling nuclear fuel.

At the annual meeting of the American Nuclear Society, held in Atlanta, GA, the science organization awarded engineer Charles Boardman the prestigious Cisler Medal for his decades of leadership in the development of GEH’s “Generation IV” PRISM reactor technology.

This week venture capitalist Steve Kirsch published a long and very detailed article online at the Huffington Post on the history of the IFR reactor design and operational work at ANL-W interviewing many of the principal scientists who worked on the project including John Sackett and Charles Till.

Eric Loewen

LoewenEric Loewen (right) briefed a group of reporters this week on PRISM, which is GE-Hitachi’s name for the IFR design. He explained the benefits of the technology is that it burns spent nuclear fuel and in the event of a problem simply shuts down safely due to the way the reactor uses heat and its liquid sodium metal coolant. Here’s a link to a set of Loewen’s slides to the Virginia chapter of the American Nuclear Society from 2007 which provide additional details on how the reactor works.

Loewen told the media the PRISM reactors can be build in small modular units of about 400 MW each. They could be very attractive to owners of existing coal plants because they could replace the boilers while using the same turbines, condensers, and grid infrastructure that are already there. You would need a new control room, but Loewen says the total investment is still a lot less than a brand new plant.

Loewen is adept at telling the nuclear industry story. In 2007 he briefed a group of Wall Street investment bankers leading off with this line, “We’re burning dead dinosaurs at an extraordinary rate.”

So far no one has built or tested a PRISM reactor which brings up to the testimony by Ms. Price.

Lisa Price

GE_logoAs the White House and U.S. Congress create a new national strategy for managing used nuclear fuel, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) is encouraging lawmakers to support the research and development necessary for recycling nuclear fuel.

Testifying before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Science & Technology Committee, Lisa Price, a GEH senior vice president, briefed lawmakers on GEH’s proposed Advanced Recycling Center (ARC). The concept offers a timely solution to the industry’s most significant public policy and environmental challenges by turning used nuclear fuel into an asset.

“The nation faces a choice today: We can continue down the same path we have been on for the last 30 years, or we can lead a transformation to a new, safer and more secure approach to nuclear energy,” said Price, GEH Senior Vice President for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle and CEO of Global Nuclear Fuel LLC.

“We need an approach that brings the benefits of nuclear energy to the world while reducing concerns about nuclear waste.”

GEH is offering the ARC, comprised of a “PRISM” sodium-cooled reactor, combined with an electrometallurgical or dry nuclear fuel recycling facility. Approximately 95% of the material in used nuclear fuel from light water reactors is considered untapped energy that could be used to generate electricity in different kinds of next-generation nuclear reactors, such as GEH’s “Generation IV” PRISM design.

GEH’s proposed ARC system would permit much of this remaining used fuel to be recycled in the PRISM reactor to generate additional electricity. As a result, utilities also could reduce the amount of used fuel that needs to be stored on-site.

GEH’s technology offers important non-proliferation advantages because it employs a different method of recycling used fuel compared to other proposed technologies or existing reprocessing systems, Price said.

Charles Boardman

prism reactorThe American Nuclear Society (ANS) announced June 16 it has honored engineer Charles Boardman with the prestigious Cisler Medal for his decades of leadership in the development of GEH’s “Generation IV” PRISM reactor technology.

“Charles Boardman’s commitment to the development of advanced nuclear reactor and fuel recycling technology could provide significant benefits for the United States for many decades to come,” said ANS President William E. Burchill.

“Recycling would address one of the challenges raised by the resurgence of nuclear energy, retrieving large amounts of energy from used fuel and greatly reducing radioactive waste.”

The ANS awarded Boardman the Walker Lee Cisler Medal during the organization’s annual conference in Atlanta. The ANS is a not-for-profit, international scientific and educational organization covering nuclear science and technology. The Cisler Medal recognizes leadership in the field of “fast reactor” technology and its potential applications for power generation.

Steve Kirsch

This article published online at the Huffington Post is a long read, but it is well worth your time if you want to know the science history of the IFR. It includes interviews with some of the principal scientists and agency officials who worked on the technology before it was cancelled in the mid-1990s. There are plenty of links to source materials. Access is free but you must register to post comments.

kirsch_steveKirsch (right) is an unusual author for this topic because he is a successful venture capitalist, entrepreneur, and businessman who has no background in nuclear energy. His article has somewhat of a “booster” flavor to it because he has little patience with government bureaucracy.

One of the people Kirsch interviews is Ray Hunter, a former high level official at the Department of Energy. Now retired, Hunter offers a frank assessment of why reactor technologies with promising futures, like the IFR, get shuffled aside in the agency.

In the mid-1990s I was a project manager at the Idaho National Laboratory working on development of new programs for the lab. Hunter was hired by the lab as a consultant to develop these ideas both in terms of market research and for use in a business plan. I worked with Hunter and found him to be a straight shooter who had a unqiue outlook on the art of the possible in government energy programs. Here’s what he wrote about that experience.

“The main reason that nuclear energy development is so screwed up in DOE is that critical elements e.g. nonproliferation, waste, and nuclear R&D are in separate organizations all reporting to the Secretary. It requires real head knocking to integrate the pieces to have a rational program and there is no one in DOE sufficiently interested in nuclear to perform this task.”

“The Lockheed-Martin Idaho Technology Company (LMITCO) contracted with me to prepare a projection on the future of nuclear energy and technology and a possible role for the INEEL in this future. Following interviews with LMITCO employees and contacts with DOE program offices, universities, industrial organizations, and foreign entities; a report was provided that identifies potential nuclear energy opportunities for INEEL. These opportunities are germane today.”

What he’s talking about is the IFR reactor design. Kirsch writes that although the IFR was cancelled in 1994, it has popped up repeatedly in evaluations of future reactor R&D by DOE’s Generation IV R&D program and both the Russians and Chinese are intensely interested in the technology.

Read the rest of Kirsch’s article not only for the fascinating history of a missed opportunity, but also for the potential to recover what was lost and to complete its development as a commercial product.

# # #

6 comments:

Charles Barton said...

Dan the rub for the “PRISM” is its limited scalability. Scalability is a deal breaker in global warming technology. Breeder reactors require start up charges. The larger the start up charge, the few the number of reactors that can be started with available resources. The number of start up charges, the material composition of start up charges, and the size of each charge would pose a potential limit on IFR scalability.

An S PRISM related study "S-PRISM Fuel Cycle Study: Future Deployment Programs and Issues," suggested that as of the year 2000, four hundred tons of plutonium could be recovered from spent nuclear fuel. This in turn would provide enough plutonium to supply start up charges for twenty-two, 1520 MWe S-PRISM facilities with about output of 33,440 MWe. That is about 12 tons of plutonium per 1 GWe of reactor capacity.

Thus the S PRISM lacks the scalability required of an AGW game changer. It would offer a solution to the nuclear waste issue. Whether the IFR is the best use of the plutonium found in Nuclear waste should be a matter for debate. My own view is that uses of the nuclear waste plutonium ought to be connected to scalable AGW solutions, but the unburned U-235 in nuclear waste would provide an alternative resource.

Anonymous said...

GEH is offering the ARC, comprised of a “PRISM” sodium-cooled reactor, combined with an electrometallurgical or dry nuclear fuel recycling facility. Approximately 95% of the material in used nuclear fuel from light water reactors is considered untapped energy that could be used to generate electricity in different kinds of next-generation nuclear reactors, such as GEH’s “Generation IV” PRISM design.

It would seem to me that unless PRISM design technology includes hydrogen production (to power automobiles), from high temperature cracking of ocean water, desalinization of ocean water, (to provide water to western states) and full utilization of the thermal generation by the process, that IFR is only a limited solution by GEH, and a waste of taxpayer monies.

Citizen Commentary:
Gene Colburn
Spokane WA

Pete said...

Charles- Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Twenty-two 1500 MWe facilities sounds like a good start to me. Then we can push for thorium. The important point is to get something going towards Gen IV.

If anyone knows, what is the projected breeding ratio for the IFR/PRISM?

Barry Brook said...

Dan, thanks for alerting me to this terrific post on the IFR.

Tom Blees said...

I dealt with the breeding ratio issue in my book, Prescription for the Planet, after lengthy discussion about it with the leading IFR experts. If the core is configured for maximum breeding you can get a doubling time (i.e. the time it takes to produce enough extra fuel to start up another reactor in addition to keeping the original one going) of as little as seven years. The book deals with what that means for the IFRs effectiveness in terms of meeting our climate change and energy challenges. Bear in mind, of course, that every year the world's 400+ LWRs are running we're producing more plutonium to start up more IFRs. What is important right now is to build a commercial-scale recycling plant to convert LWR spent fuel into metal fuel for PRISM reactors. Once that path is demonstrated, many such recycling facilities could be built, since they are quite small and simple, vastly more so than the aqueous reprocessing facilities that they're too often confused (or deliberately conflated) with.

I beg to differ, Charles, with your numbers on spent fuel, but I suspect you're dealing with a different data set than I used in my book. By my calculations we will have enough spent LWR fuel worldwide (about 300,000 tons) to yield 3,000 tons of IFR fuel if we'd recycle it all into metal fuel. And it only takes about 5 tons per GW, not 12, to start up a fast reactor, so we could start up about 600 GW (plus whatever extra we could manage from decommissioned weapons). And as you suggested, if we'd recover the U-235 from the LWR spent fuel that would add to the mix, a process that will be far more efficient with the development of laser enrichment technology that's about to be demonstrated soon. As you can imagine, we wouldn't have to wait 7 years to get more startup charges, either, since we could combine the extra fuel from, say, four reactors when their fuel is being partially swapped out and recycled to make startup charges for another one. It's all laid out at length in my book, if you happen to have it, on page 360+.

Great post, Dan!

Anonymous said...

What of the discussion of the cost savings realized by the elimination spent fuel storage? Both real costs and liability costs as we are seeing in Japan. As this is being posted reactor 4 had been shutdown but now the spent fuel has been allowed to dry out. Keeping only "needed" nmaterials onsite will be a factor.