September 6, 2009

Pebble Bed fuel spheres ship for testing

New nuclear fuel contains 9.6% enriched uraniumNuclear Fuel pebbles

Hat tip to Rod Adams at Atomic Insights

South Africa’s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) company has manufactured high temperature reactor fuel spheres or “pebbles” containing 9.6% enriched uranium. Most commercial nuclear fuel is enriched to 3-5%.

The “pebbles” are now entering a two-year testing phase. Successful completion of the tests will form the basis for design and construction of a fuel fabrication plant in South Africa.

PBMR said in a statement 16 of the graphite spheres had been shipped to Russia at the Institute of Nuclear Materials in Zarechny near Ekaterinburg for irradiation tests to demonstrate the fuel’s integrity under reactor conditions. The tests will begin in January 2010 and will take about two years to complete. Key issues will be the stability of the fuel and burn up rate of the U235 over time.

PBMR fuelFuel spheres will also be sent for irradiation testing to the Institute for Energy of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, at Petten in the Netherlands.

The “pebbles” will be used in a high temperature, gas cooled reactor design generating 100-165 MW of power. The primary application will be process heat. The reactors can also be used for generation of electricity.

The design is similar to one being developed by the Idaho National Laboratory for a very-high-temperature reactor (VHTR) as part of its R&D mission.

Local manufacturing capability crucial to success

The pebbles were manufactured in collaboration with the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa). The achievement follows PBMR and Necsa’s successful manufacturing in December 2008 of enriched uranium-coated particles. There are 14 000 of them in a pebble. PBMR said this is the first time that high temperature reactor fuel has been manufactured in South Africa.

An industry source told this blog PBMR got the enriched fuel for the pebble bed fuel manufacturing process through a deal with the Russian nuclear fuel export agency. Reportedly, the 9.6% enriched uranium came from blended down HEU from Russian stockpiles of dismantled nuclear weapons.

Jaco KriekPBMR chief executive officer Jaco Kriek (right) said the irradiation tests in Russia are the final step in the development of the fuel for the PBMR demonstration unit being built at Koeberg in South Africa.

Johan Slabber, PBMR’s chief technology officer said the test pebbles are similar to the fuel that will be used in a PBMR reactor in future. The irradiation tests will determine whether the fission product retention capability of PBMR fuel spheres is comparable with that of the German high temperature reactor fuel on which the PBMR technology is based.

Demonstration plant still on the books

salesThe PBMR project, which is backed by the South African government, involves building both the demonstration plant at Koeberg, the site of the country’s only existing nuclear reactor unit, and a pebble fuel manufacturing plant at Pelindaba near Pretoria.

In its latest annual report, PBMR CEO Jaco Kriek estimated the demonstration plant would cost R14,5bn ($1.9 billion) to complete by 2014, and the completed fuel plant R2,3bn ($300 million), in 2013. This excludes further investments during the demonstration phase costing R6bn ($789 million).

The schedule is to start construction in 2010 and for the demonstration plant to be completed by 2014. Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan said Aug 14 the government is committed to building the Pebble Bed reactor as one of its solutions to the nation’s ongoing energy crisis. At one time the government had visions of developing the PBMR for export, but for now the primary and only customer is Eskom, the key South African utility.

# # #

September 5, 2009

Idaho National Lab on Facebook

Social Media opens the “site” to better communication

Taking a page literally from the play book of Sec. of Energy Steven Chu, the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has launched into the world of social media with a Facebook page.

INL logo blue largeThe new presence on the Internet is a robust effort. It contains information designed to reach the next generation of scientists and engineers who are needed to advance the lab’s R&D missions. [see INL press release for details]

The Facebook page includes information on job opportunities, what it is like to work at the lab, and information about Idaho Falls and the region. It covers the lab’s missions in the signature areas of nuclear energy, energy & environment, and national/homeland security.

There are photos, videos, and links to the lab’s Flickr and YouTube sites. Plus, you can get contact information for recruiters and the public affairs staff if you want information on careers or the lab’s programs.

New energy degree programs at ISU

estec logo If you are wondering how to get the skills to launch a career in the rapidly growing energy sector, take a look at the two new degree programs at Idaho State University (ISU) [INL press release].

The academic programs will help train students to work in the energy sector. The Idaho National Laboratory helped design the programs in cooperation with ISU.

One of the programs will prepare mechanical engineers for the nuclear, coal, gas and renewable industries. Another positions students in the wind engineering program to manage construction and maintenance of wind turbines.

The programs are part of ISU's Energy Systems Technology and Education Center, created in 2007 with grants from the U.S. Department of Labor and the National Science Foundation to address needs for new workers in the U.S. energy sector.

Richard Holman, deputy director of the ISU center, says the program "offers a distinctive element of hands-on training you can't get anywhere else."

Check it out.

# # #

September 3, 2009

What’s a small reactor like you doing in a market like this?

Hyperion CEO claims 122 customers have options to order a 25 MW reactor

Hyperion logo John (Grizz) Deal is an expressive driver of an entrepreneurial start-up that has spun out unique nuclear reactor technology from the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). It’s not a conventional reactor with fuel rods and cooling systems. Instead, it is a 25 MW “battery” that is expected to be compact and light enough to be delivered on the back of a truck. The vision is a user will pop it into a hole in the ground and have to replace the fuel just once every five years.

john_grizz_deal

The firm is faced with competition from a number of other emerging small reactor firms, including industrial powerhouse Babcock & Wilcock, which unveiled a “game changing” 125 MW mPower reactor earlier this year. Deal (right) says, in an exclusive interview with this blog, that Hyperion “is not in a race for winner take all.” He adds that each of the reactor firms are targeting different market niches and there’s some for his firm as well.

“No one is saying we have to replace large plants, like the Westinghouse AP1000. We all [small reactor firms] have a place in the market. I want all small reactor makers to succeed. We are not afraid to be a nuclear company.“

Deal does not have a working prototype suitable to show customers. He claims 122 potential users have signed options to buy one and a quarter of them are in the U.S. Here's a few of the types of customers the firm has in mind.

Military and mining applications

The first key market for Hyperion is military applications for reliable power for U.S. bases overseas so that combat readiness cannot be held hostage to outages from local grid. To support this marketing strategy, Deal has stocked his advisory board with former defense official including former Sec. of the Force William Anderson. He also sees his reactors providing electricity for electric vehicles the armed forces will eventually need to buy “to reduce their massive carbon footprint.”

hyperionreactor

The second niche is power for remote mining and oil & gas fields that have no access to electricity. Variations of this model include providing process heat for the Alberta tar sands. People have been taking about taking reactors to the Peace River region for decades. Deal is the latest to get a gleam in his eye to swap the power of enriched uranium for high priced natural gas. Although Bruce Power last year announced plans to build twin 1,100 MW AECL ACR1000 reactors there, Deal says he thinks he can get there first.

Anyone who wants to bring heat

A third key market is replacing dirty coal plants in eastern Europe swapping out the boilers for his reactor and hooking it up to the turbines and the grid. Coal-powered utilities in Slovakia and Poland have reportedly expressed interest in this approach.

The reason for this strategy is that the primary output of Hyperion’s “battery” is heat. A customer that wants to buy one to make electricity has to get their own turbines and power distribution network. Deal claims he can deliver his pocket reactor for $1,000/Kw, or $25 million, and that the balance of plant for one will come in at another $1,000/Kw for a market maker price of $2,000/Kw.

Industry observers question these numbers pointing out Babcock & Wilcox is estimating the cost of their 125 MW reactor at $4,000/Kw. However, NuScale Power, which is developing a 45 MW conventional light water reactor, has been quoted as saying its design will come in at $2,000/Kw. A 45Mw reactor could cost $90M. It could be affordable for municipal utilities that don't want to hitch their wagon to the costs and risks of being investors in building a 1,000 MW plant.

High hurdles to get to market

HighHurdleDeal says he will deliver Hyperion's reactor for commercial sale in 2013. To get here, he has daunting challenges to overcome including completing his goal of raising $65 million to finish the design, get it licensed by the NRC, develop a supply chain, and, most importantly, build a factory to make it.

For a location he’s looking at Idaho Falls, ID, a “nuclear city” which last year went all out to successfully get French nuclear giant Areva to commit to build a $2 billion uranium enrichment plant 18 mile west of town.

Deal figures if the town will go for something like that, a manufacturing plant for a 25 MW nuclear battery would be welcomed with open arms. Economic development leaders in the town are interested in his plans. Like everyone else who reads about the firm, they want to see how and when Deal will get his invention from the drawing board to a prototype and then to a docketed application for reactor design review at the NRC.

Deal will also need a patient set of investors. His primary investor to date is Altira Group LLC, a Denver-based venture capital firm. Dirk McDermott, a board member and partner in the firm, is enthusiastic about Hyperion’s future.

He has to be bullish on the project because it is unlikely that Altira, which Deal says has total capital investments of $176 million, is going to bet the ranch on all of Deal’s financial needs. It’s web site lists 26 energy-related investment projects including Hyperion. A typical investment for the firm is in the range of $5-10 million. A key investment criteria is that the energy technology firm getting equity capital from Altira has it’s “own skin in the game.”

Other investors have to come to the table, and getting them is Deal’s top priority. The firm is still privately held, and Deal says an IPO is unlikely in the next few years. Deal knows he’s under the gun. “We have to deliver,” he says.

NRC reactor design certification is the key to success

nrc logo The biggest challenge is NRC design certification. It is the “gold standard” for international nuclear energy markets. To sell overseas, Hyperion must convince the NRC’s engineers its reactor meets the agency’s stringent safety standards which are the same for large and small reactors. Hyperion’s battery has no cooling pipes, pumps, or some of the other standard systems of conventional light water reactors. It is too early to tell whether these differences will speed up the design certification process or slow it down.

Licensing could be expensive because the NRC is required by law to recover its costs for reviewing a reactor design. Its engineers charge the applicant $250/hr and the clock could tick for some time with a radical new design that uses highly enriched fuel.

Deal says there is a team of 30 nuclear engineers and scientists at Los Alamos, working through a CRADA, to complete the design and support the licensing process. Most firms at this stage in Hyperion’s product development cycle would be submitting white papers to the NRC to start the agency up the learning curve about the new technology. So far, Deal says, the firm has not put anything in the agency’s hands.

Competition for small reactors making process heat

PebblesThe competition is taking a different approach. PBMR, a South African firm developing a 165 MW high temperature gas cooled reactor, has been in a dialog with the NRC since 2007. It expects to submit a reactor design to the agency in the next two-to-three years.

In December 2007 PBMR officials estimated the cost of the prototype at $3,500/Kw. A commercial version would have to come in much closer to NuScale’s cost to be attractive to developing nations.

Eskom, which is the primary customer in South Africa, has experienced severe financial setbacks stopping its planned tender for conventional LWR designs. Government funding for both Eskom’s nuclear program and development of a prototype of the PBMR design depends on rate increases political leaders have been reluctant to grant to the utility. Outside investors such as Mitsubishi have been providing some investment support.

China has leapt ahead of South Africa with its version of the Pebble Bed design. The Huaneng Group launched a commercial demonstration of its pebble bed modular design at a plant in Shandong Province. China is developing its reactor for domestic use and is funding it through state-run corporations. Exports could come later, but still sooner than anyone else.

The NRC issued its own strategy on licensing the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) in August 2008. The NGNP is a planned 300 MW high temperature gas cooled reactor design being developed by the Department of Energy at the Idaho National Laboratory. Like PBMR and Hyperion, it is also targeting the process heat needs of the chemical processing and oil & gas industries. However, construction of a prototype isn’t expected to begin until after 2016.

* * *

There are plenty of challenges facing Hyperion’s Deal once he has a working prototype. His investors know this. Their patience for the time and effort it will take to develop a product will only be sustained by a clear path and defined time to market. John (Grizz) Deal has his track shoes and is on a dead run to make it happen.

# # #

September 2, 2009

Tales of two Texas cities

When it comes to new nuclear reactors, Austin and San Antonio are remarkably far apart despite being in the same state

coolhandnukeThere are stark difference in the dialog in two key Texas cities over the role of nuclear energy in the future of electricity supply.

In San Antonio the city council is poised to approve more than $2 billion in new spending over the next decade to support construction of Units 3 & 4 of the South Texas Project (STP).

In Austin, anti-nuclear activists who fought the industry in the 70s are now part of the political establishment and successfully spiked new investments in the plant.

So what accounts for differences?

Read the complete story exclusively at Cool Hand Nuke, a nuclear jobs portal and a whole lot more.

# # #

September 1, 2009

Finish the Finnish reactor

Areva books charges on project delays
(updated 09/02/09 with quotes from TVO via NucNet)

Olkiluoto3Areva and Finnish utility TVO are still feuding over the path forward to complete the 1,600 MW EPA which will become Olkilutoto #3.

In a statement Areva blamed “inadequate resources deployed by TVO to fulfill their contractual commitments” which led to schedule delays and increased costs.

Areva said in unusual blunt language that TVO's proposals and contractual modifications were due to "inappropriate behavior in contract management" including conduct which "is not in line with standard industry practices."

For its part TVO said in a statement published by NucNet,

“Contrary to what Areva implied in its press release yesterday, they have not informed TVO about discontinuing work or presented any conditions for the continuation of work on the OL-3 construction site. According to the fixed-price turnkey contract, the Areva-Siemens consortium is responsible for the construction and commissioning of the plant unit and for the project schedule.”

TVO president and chief executive officer Jarmo Tanhua added:

“The schedule for the construction site is challenging and Areva's public speculation about stopping the works does not make it any easier to keep to it.”

The NY Times reported Sept 2 that the Finnish safety authority said Areva outsourced some of the construction modules to unqualified subcontractors, making it responsible for some of the problems.

The original price of the reactor set at (euro) 3 billion has accumulated an additional (euro) 2.3 billion in new costs. As a result, the French state-owned nuclear giant said its profits dropped by a heart stopping 79% in the first half of 2009 after booking (euro) 550 million in charges over delays related to construction of the plant. Net profit for the six month period ending June 30 was (euro) 161 million against profits of (euro) 760 million a year ago.

This is the latest in a series of setbacks for the plant, one of two EPRs now under construction in Europe. The project is being closely watched by the global nuclear industry, and its critics, to see if cost overruns which plagued new reactor builds in the 1970s will re-emerge to sink the nuclear renaissance. The plant was scheduled to enter revenue service in 2009, but a projected 2012 start-up date is not certain.

Areva CEO Anne Lauvergeon told wire services “there is a good chance” the 2012 date will be met, but Areva and TVO have reportedly not yet come to terms on the final construction schedule. Also, Areva has feuded off-and-on with Finnish nuclear regulatory authorities over quality assurance standards based in part on miscommunications between the reactor builder and the government. Workforce issues including language barriers have hampered progress at the site.

Finland is Areva’s moonshot

footprint on the moonClearly, Areva has a boatload of problems in Finland some of which are not of its own making, but it owns the project. For better or worse, it is the current showcase for what the nuclear industry can, or cannot do, with a new reactor design. The credibility of its own future and the future of the global nuclear industry will be affected by whether the firm can finish the Finnish reactor. In short, this is Areva’s moonshot and it cannot miss.

The prospects for other projects will rise or fall with the outcome in Finland. Areva is building a similar plant in Flamanville, France, and has booked deals for four more including two in China and two as part of India’s race to build nuclear reactor power stations. In the U.S. the firm plans to break ground in 2012 at Constellation’s Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland. Other U.S. projects include a high profile deal with Duke Energy for a site in Ohio.

Areva and TVO need to come to terms, not only to address their respective interests, but also because they have an obligation to the global nuclear industry. Olkilutoto is already a big fat target for anti-nuclear groups in the U.S. and overseas. The faster the two parties can agree and then get the job done, the better the future will be for Areva’s other nuclear projects and for the nuclear industry. Like they say at NASA – failure is not an option.

# # #