Gen IV Nuclear Plants - AIChE Presentation

Subtitle: Gen IV Designs Have Too Many Serious Flaws

This article follows the previous article (see link) with my recollections and comments on the nuclear power presentation at the AIChE dinner meeting on 4-11-2019 in Houston, Texas.

The presenter, Dr. Pavel V. Tsvetkov, seemed quite knowledgeable and sincere in his views.  To his credit, he mentioned a few negative points for nuclear energy in general, and specific points to some of the designs he presented.  He did, however, say some things that were either unrealistic, or entirely too optimistic in my view.   And, that is ok; I believe we need optimists in the world, as long as their views are filtered and judged through a sober process that adequately considers safety, costs, and better alternatives. 

The questions in my previous article remained unanswered for the most part, as they were not asked.  A few others in attendance did ask a similar question on the safety, and spent fuel, and plant size or capacity.  But, nothing on subsidies, capacity factor in operation, construction costs, operating costs, or decommissioning costs. 

A few of the presenter's points made me pause and hope that no one ever, ever builds one of these things.  More on that below. 

In no particular order, then, here are some points I recall that seemed true about nuclear energy's drawbacks. 

- The entire fission nuclear process is carbon-free only in the operating reactor portion.  All the other aspects are performed now, and likely in the future, with a large degree of fossil fuel use.   Those other aspects include, but are probably not limited to, uranium mining, uranium ore processing and concentration, uranium fuel preparation and delivery, constructing a plant, decommissioning a plant, and spent fuel cooling, handling and monitoring. 

- Nuclear reactors have some ways to produce electricity other than boiling water or heating a gas, but the engineering challenges are simply too great to spend time on these.  

-  Nuclear plants can be built to follow the grid load, but the costs are greater.  This is a crucial point, because already high costs are increased even more as the plant reduces output to follow the load.  

Next, here are some points the presenter made that are absolutely false, in my experience. 

- Existing nuclear plants will run for 100 years.   No, they won't.  These plants shut down almost always before the 40th year of operation.  The ones that keep running are crying desperately for more government subsidies because they are losing money. 

-  SMR, or small modular reactors of various designs, will be very low-cost.  He stated they will be built in factories just like cars are built.   That is certainly not going to happen, as the need for electrical plants simply is not on the same scale as automobile sales.   Automobile sales are in the millions of units per year.  Power plant sales are in the few hundreds of plants per year.    No economy of production volume will change those economics.   For example, one can calculate that for a 40 year life, replacing only the natural gas and coal-fired plants in the US requires approximately 60 new plants each year.  If these were small enough, say 50 MWe output as envisioned for small modular reactors, we can increase that to 300 plants per year.   That is nowhere close to the millions per year required to achieve economy of scale through increased production volume.  Instead, the economics work against one, as smaller units cost much more per quantity of output. 

- Molten salt reactors, such as molten fluoride with dissolved thorium or uranium, are intrinsically safe.  No, they are not.  He showed a conceptual flow diagram that made me cringe.  The molten, 900 degree C radioactive bath is pumped from the reactor vessel through a heat exchanger, where a heat transfer fluid is heated.   That heat transfer fluid is then pumped through a second heat exchanger, where water is boiled to make steam for a turbine.  The heat transfer fluid is then pumped back around in a loop to the first heat exchanger.   The cringe-worthy aspect is the fact that heat exchangers eventually leak.  There will be heat exchanger fluid flow either into the radioactive molten salt, or the other way round with the molten salt injected into the heat exchanger fluid.  One picks one, or the other by choice of operating pressures in the heat exchanger.  Either way, that is some serious bad news when (not IF) the leaks occur.    As proof, one need only look at the heat exchanger leaks that occur periodically in the existing nuclear reactor fleet; and note soberly that such a leak was what caused the San Onofre Generating Station (SONGS) to shut down permanently.   That was "only" a radioactive steam leak.  

Another serious drawback is the pumping of that radioactive, molten fluoride salt.   Pumps leak, and having that material leak onto the concrete floor is more than a bit troublesome.  There will also be valves in the lines, and valves also leak.  Who wants radioactive, molten fluoride salt dripping from a valve, making a puddle to step in or over?

- Gen IV nuclear plants can be used to produce fresh water via desalination.   No, they won't.  The economics will not allow such a thing.  Even if desalination is ever necessary, solar thermal plants have a huge economic advantage over the incredibly expensive and dangerous nuclear plants. 

- Molten metal Gen IV nuclear plants will operate at high temperatures, therefore high thermal cycle efficiencies, and will be safe.   No, the same issues exist as described above with pumping molten salts: it is extremely difficult and dangerous to pump hot, molten sodium, and the same for hot, molten lead.   Sodium reacts explosively with contact with humid air, and lead fumes cause all manner of brain damage in humans. 

- Gen IV reactors will be ideal for supplying process heat in refineries and petrochemical plants, also chemical plants.   No, they won't.  The inherent dangers in such process plants simply will not be improved by the presence of a nuclear plant, whether for electricity or process heat production.  Instead, having a nuclear plant on the premises will make emergency responses much, much more hazardous.   Unfortunately, refineries and other process plants sometimes have operating upsets, fires, and explosions that require emergency response personnel to enter and handle the problems.   Who wants to speculate on the incredible situation where the plant is on fire, but the nuclear plant is so close to the fire that a radiation release is not only possible, but very likely.   No, thanks.  


There may be more issues to write about and discuss, but here ends the article for today. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas

copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here

Climate Change................here  and here

Fresh Water......................here

Engineering......................here  and here

Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

A Good Laugh over Thorium

Subtitle: Anonymous Says Thorium Is Too Good

Sometimes, I just have to laugh.  I don't post many comments on SLB, although I do receive a great many comments.    My blog only contains comments that pass my moderation standards.  Many comments get discarded, such as hateful statements, irrelevant statements, blatant sales pitches, and illegal statements.    Today, I post an anonymous comment that was sent in just the other day on one of SLB's thorium nuclear power articles.   This one is given its own article with my commentary - it is just too funny. 

I don't mind anonymous comments just because they are anonymous.  I understand there are some excellent reasons for some people to remain anonymous.  It's the content of the comment, not the commenter's internet name that gets the moderation. 

Note, this commenter gave zero support for any of his statements (or her, but I'll refer to him and his.)   That is pretty typical for an anonymous and negative tone such as this one. 

First, the comment in quoted italics, then my thoughts on what Anonymous wrote. 

"Hmmm

Your "blog" is truly a masterful deception. The reason that alternatives to Thorium power plants have occurred had absolutely NOTHING to do with the failure of thorium power plant technology. Way back in the early 70's Westinghouse Corp. had 2 fully operational thorium test plants.

While there were minor problems, they did in fact completely obsolete virtually all nuclear and fossil fuel technologies of the time. Now I happen to know a little about this because my father was a senior management Consultant for a major consulting firm who was under contract with them at the time. The issue of Thorium was not that it was a failure; rather it was far to (sic) big a success. It literally would have rendered the entire fossil fuel industry of oil, gas and coal, not to mention conventional nuclear power obsolete . Its other big failing, and ultimately the excuse for burying the technology, was the fact that unlike conventional nuclear power, there was (sic) no by products (sic) suitable for material for nuclear weapons production. 


Ironically it was Jimmy Carter who officially signed the death warrant for Thorium, claiming national security issues. But in truth Thorium was a victim of its own success. It was to damn good, and to damned cheap." 

My comments:

He writes, "your "blog" is truly a masterful deception."  I suppose putting the word "blog" in quotations is his way of saying SLB is not a real blog.   Perhaps not, but more than 42,000 visitors from 145 countries have shown up to read SLB.    

He then says "in the early 70's Westinghouse Corp. had 2 fully operational thorium test plants."  No references or citations were given, but perhaps Anonymous refers to the short test at Shippingport, Pennsylvania where thorium fuel was tested in a nuclear power plant.   For those who want to read about this, Idaho National Lab published a document on it at this link.   The Shippingport reactor was a Light Water Breeder Reactor (LWBR) test plant of only 72 MWe maximum.  Key passage is shown below:

"During most of core life, the LWBR was operated as a base load station (Richardson et al. 1987, WAPD-TM-1606, p. 35). During the first two years of operation, the core was subjected to 204 planned swingload cycles to demonstrate the core transient capability and generating system load follow to simulate operation of a large commercial nuclear reactor (Richardson et al. 1987, WAPD-TM-1606, p. 35). A swing load cycle is defined as power reduction from about 90% to 35–60% for 4 to 8 hr, then back to 90% or higher power. Despite shutdowns and swing, the reactor achieved a high capacity factor
of 65% and high availability factor of 86% (Richardson et al. 1987, WAPD-TM-1606, p. 35).

For its initial 18,000 EFPH, the maximum allowable reactor power was established as 72 MW gross (electric) . . ." 

Anonymous then writes the truly funny statement: "It literally would have rendered the entire fossil fuel industry of oil, gas and coal, not to mention conventional nuclear power obsolete."   That is a bold conclusion, with zero facts provided to support the conclusion.  Here are the important points that Anonymous must prove to support such a conclusion: how would nuclear-produced electricity make obsolete the oil and gas industry, given that oil provides transportation fuels for cars, trucks, ships, aircraft, and trains, plus lubricants, asphalts, and petrochemical feedstocks, and natural gas provides critical feedstock for agricultural and petrochemical production?   That thorium nuclear-produced electricity must indeed be novel, even Nobel-Prize worthy stuff.   Also, coal has many non-electricity uses, but perhaps Anonymous is not aware of such things, or he has a plan for substituting his thorium nuclear-produced electricity for those services.   Here is a partial summary of non-electricity uses of coal: 

"Other important users of coal include steel producers, alumina refineries, paper manufacturers, and the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Several chemical products can be produced from the by-products of coal. Refined coal tar is used in the manufacture of chemicals, such as creosote oil, naphthalene, phenol, and benzene. Ammonia gas recovered from coke ovens is used to manufacture ammonia salts, nitric acid and agricultural fertilisers. Thousands of different products have coal or coal by-products as components: soap, aspirins, solvents, dyes, plastics and fibres, such as rayon and nylon."  (source:  Worldcoal.org)   

So, we can see that Anonymous is truly a funny man.    But what about the statement that thorium would make "conventional nuclear power obsolete?"   As written on SLB (and a few other places), nuclear power that now produces only approximately 11 percent of the world's electricity after 50 years of intense effort, is outrageously expensive and so unsafe that only with effectively full government indemnity from radiation releases are any plants built anywhere.   Therefore, Anonymous' thorium nuclear plants must somehow overcome those two big hurdles: must be much less costly to build and operate and decommission, and must be so safe that they do not need government assistance.    

Put bluntly, that is not going to happen with thorium plants.  As written before on SLB, see link, when a nuclear plant is operated at anything but baseload, the price for its electricity must skyrocket.  As shown in the above quote from the Idaho National Lab (INL) paper, Shippingport was operated as a load-following power plant, even though it was tiny at only 72 MWe.  The output shown in the INL report shows max output of 50 to 65 MWe.  

So, thanks for the laugh, Anonymous.  Your conclusion of "It was to (sic) damn good, and to (sic) damned cheap." is truly funny.   "Good" means what, exactly?  Was the plant able to compete with a coal-fired power plant on cost?  We note that the test was for only 5 years, and not full-time at that.  Would such a plant last for 40 years?  "Cheap" means what, exactly?  Note that conventional nuclear fuel from uranium is touted by the nuclear proponents as costing "only" one or perhaps two cents per kWh generated.  Even if thorium fuel was free, how much would that reduce a customer's monthly bill? 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell

More Thorium Silliness

Just a few thoughts that came to mind while reading comments on WUWT, the latest puff-piece on Thorium-based nuclear power plants. 

First, very few commenters have a grasp of what a molten salt is or does, especially when that molten salt contains radioactive thorium and uranium and other fission products.  

One comment, in particular, shows a vast ignorance of economics. claiming ". . . near-free (sic) and unlimited electrical power ($0.03/kWh), which will gut the remaining industrial sectors of Western economies. . ."  This refers to thorium-powered nuclear plants built in China.   The 3 cents per kWh might be the fuel and variable operating cost, but certainly does not include amortized capital costs.  As shown previously on SLB, a molten-salt reactor using liquid fluoride salts will cost much more than the present generation of uranium-powered pressurized-water reactors, and those cost approximately $10,000 per MW or more.  The per-kWh cost just for the capital cost would be approximately 25 cents, depending on how much state subsidy is applied to the capital cost.    Note: apparently "forgetting" to include the capital costs is a favorite ploy of nuclear proponents, because it allows them to compare (barely favorably) a nuclear plant's "cost" to natural gas.  

Another clueless commenter states ". . . there isn’t really much for the CHinese (sic) to do except size up the design. . . "  This particular commenter claims to be ". . .a design engineer who worked on projects for nearly 40 years. . ."   The "size up the design" refers to scale-up of a thorium molten salt reactor.   As I wrote elsewhere on SLB, scale-up from the pilot plant size at Oak Ridge to a full-scale commercial plant of 1,000 MW electrical output is a massive, daunting task.  (see link)  In pertinent part: "Scale-up from ORNL size (7 MW thermal) by 500 times is an enormous challenge.   Note that scale-up with a factor of 7 to 1 is a stretch, yet such a factor (using 6) requires four steps (40, 250, 1500, and 3500) to use round numbers.   Each larger plant requires years to design, construct, and test before moving to the next size, and that is if the larger design actually works the first time."  

The same clueless commenter on scale-up added to his list of errors with this:  ". . .corrosion problems that some rag on about . . . were all but solved. . ."   This refers to the very real corrosion and cracking in the reactor material, in fact, any material that touched the hot molten radioactive fluoride salt.  A material was developed and tested, but not for the 40 or more years with multiple heating-up and cool-down cycles that a commercial reactor must withstand, not to mention any vibrational stresses caused by any earthquakes.   The Oak Ridge National Laboratory "developed (in 1977) an improved and very expensive alloy Hastelloy N for nuclear applications with molten Fluoride salts.   In tests, Hastelloy N with Niobium (Nb) had much better corrosion resistance to molten fluoride salts."  (source: link just above from SLB article on thorium molten salt reactors).  

There are many other, equally silly comments. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (C) 2015 by Roger Sowell

Thorium Nuclear Reactor Not the World Savior

Subtitle: Archibald Writes Wrong on Thorium

A recent article on Watts Up With That, WUWT (see link) sings the praises of thorium-fueled nuclear power plants as the savior of the world.  The article is by David Archibald, "a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C."  

Mr. Archibald could not be more wrong in his assessment - with one small exception, see end of this article. 

Thorium molten salt reactor schematic
source: Idaho National Lab

As written in several articles on SLB, nuclear power in any form is hopelessly uneconomic, impractical and unsafe.  see link, and link, and link.   As a result, almost full subsidy from government is required for any nuclear plants to be constructed and operate  (see link). 

Mr. Archibald opines that fossil fuel will disappear "soon" and only thorium-based nuclear power will be available.   He states that solar and wind will be unable to provide power, especially economic power.  

He states that a 250 MWe thorium power plant would be the basis for new plants.  This suffers from the same economy of scale problem that plagues small nuclear reactors (see link).   He further makes the mistake of using overnight (estimated) cost for the fully installed cost of a plant.  He uses $3,246 per Kw for overnight cost and a plant size of 250 MWe, then states the installed cost is $800 million each.   The fact is, as written on SLB (see link), major industrial projects require far more costs than just overnight cost.  The costs associated with material and labor inflation over time, and interest on construction loans can easily double or triple the overnight costs.  Construction schedules, or time to construct, typically stretch far beyond initial estimates, with actual time from start to startup being 8 to 10 years or more.  

Now, as to what Mr. Archibald got right.  He correctly stated that coal will run out.  His timetable is off by a couple of centuries, but he is correct that it will run out.  As earlier stated on SLB, the facts that coal will soon run out, and coal presently provides almost one-half of the world's electricity present one of the biggest challenges of our times.  Perhaps, it is the single biggest challenge.  

The alternative to coal is not nuclear, as Mr. Archibald states, but the vast amounts of free, renewable, zero-pollution, reliable power provided by ocean currents, solar, and wind with appropriate energy storage.  Note carefully, though, that ocean current power needs no storage.  (see link) 

I have not read the comments on Mr. Archibald's article at WUWT, but they are sure to be entertaining.  And for the most part, very wrong.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell

The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part 28

Subtitle: Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process

Preface   

This article, number 28 in the series, discusses nuclear power via a thorium molten-salt reactor (MSR) process.   (Note, this is also sometimes referred to as LFTR, for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor)   The thorium MSR is frequently trotted out by nuclear power advocates, whenever the numerous drawbacks to uranium fission reactors are mentioned.   To this point in the TANP series, uranium fission, via PWR or BWR, has been the focus.  Some critics of TANP have already stated that thorium solves all of those problems and

Thorium Molten Salt Reator process
source:  Idaho National Lab

therefore should be vigorously pursued.  Some of the critics have stated that Sowell obviously has never heard of thorium reactors.   Quite the contrary, I am familiar with the process and have serious reservations about the numerous problems with thorium MSR.  

It is interesting, though, that nuclear advocates must bring up the MSR process.  If the uranium fission process was any good at all, there would be no need for research and development of any other type of process, such as MSR and fusion.   Indeed, as already pointed out in TANP, uranium fission plants have barely captured 11 percent of world-wide electricity production after 50 years of heroic efforts.   One would expect, if nuclear power were as great as the advocates claim, that nuclear plants would already supply 80 or 90 percent of all electric power in the world.  Clearly, they do not because they are not at all great, they have enormous and insurmountable drawbacks in cost, safety, and toxic product legacy left for future generations.    Once the thorium MSR process is discussed in this article, the next article will discuss yet a third hope for the nuclear advocates, in case fusion fizzles out and MSR melts away to nothingness.   That next article will be on high-temperature gas reactors, the HTGR.   As will be seen, HTGR also has serious drawbacks.  

One final preliminary point: some of the nuclear advocates that push MSR lament the fact that, many years ago, thorium MSR lost in a competition with uranium PWR to provide propulsion for ships and submarines for the US Navy.   They say, wrongly, that Admiral Rickover chose uranium PWR over thorium MSR so that the US could develop atomic bombs.  What is much more likely the reason uranium PWR won is that the materials used for the MSR developed the severe cracking described below.   No Admiral in charge of submarines could take a chance on the reactor splitting apart from the shock of depth charges.    

The Idaho National Lab MSR Description  (see drawing above)

"The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) system produces fission power in a circulating molten salt fuel mixture with an epithermal-spectrum reactor and a full actinide recycle fuel cycle. In the MSR system, the fuel is a circulating liquid mixture of sodium, zirconium, and uranium fluorides. The molten salt fuel flows through graphite core channels, producing an epithermal spectrum. The heat generated in the molten salt is transferred to a secondary coolant system through an intermediate heat exchanger, and then through a tertiary heat exchanger to the power conversion system. The reference plant has a power level of 1,000 MWe. The system has a coolant outlet temperature of 700 degrees Celsius, possibly ranging up to 800 degrees Celsius, affording improved thermal efficiency. The closed fuel cycle can be tailored for the efficient burnup of plutonium and minor actinides."  - See link 


Thorium’s Listed Advantages 

a) Fuel is plentiful because thorium is abundant

b) Fuel is cheap on a kWh produced basis

c) Molten salt reactor supposedly is safer, via a solid salt plug underneath the reactor that melts upon overheating if power is lost or some other upset occurs.   This allows the reactor contents, hot molten fluoride salts with radioactive thorium, uranium, and plutonium, to flow by gravity into several separate collection chambers to self-cool.

d) Low pressure reactor using molten salt – supposedly safer than a high-pressure PWR design. 

Oak Ridge  MSR Test Project

a) The reactor was small, with thermal output only 7 MWth.  The reactor process had no steam generator and no electricity was produced.  It ran only a few months.

b) Metal that was used for contacting molten salt developed intergranular cracking; completely unsuitable for commercial reactor use.  see link

c) ORNL then developed (in 1977) an improved and very expensive alloy Hastelloy N for nuclear applications with molten Fluoride salts.   In tests, Hastelloy N with Niobium (Nb) had much better corrosion resistance to molten fluoride salts.  

Future MSR designs and problems

a) The MSR design is much like a PWR design: each has a reactor, steam generator, and turbine/generator for the three primary sections.  However, as shown in the Idaho National Lab drawing above (INL), there are four loops in this design.  PWR has three circulating fluid loops: cooling water, boiler feedwater/steam, and the primary heating loop,  Yet, the MRS has a fourth loop, for radioactive molten salt for MSR.    Any MSR design that hopes to be economic will also be huge, likely in the 1000 MWe output size, to employ economy of scale.  This requires scaleup of approximately 500-to-1 compared to the ORNL project.   With a cycle efficiency of approximately 30 to 33 percent, the thermal output will be approximately 3500 MWth.   Scaleup from ORNL size by 500 times is an enormous challenge.   Note that scaleup with a factor of 7 to 1 is a stretch, yet such a factor (using 6) requires four steps (40, 250, 1500, and 3500) to use round numbers.   Each larger plant requires years to design, construct, and test before moving to the next size, and that is if the larger design actually works the first time.    It is also instructive (and very, very expensive) that the MSR design has a dual-compressor and heat removal fluid instead of the conventional steam condenser system.  Costs and operating problems for this design are much, much greater than for a PWR.  

b) The materials of construction for a very hot molten Fluoride salt mixture will likely be extremely expensive, if made of Hastelloy N to prevent the widespread cracking found at ORNL.   It remains to be seen if even Hastelloy N will have a sufficient strength and thickness after 40 years of service. 

c) Pumping the very hot, corrosive, molten salt mixture will require expensive alloy materials, and due to the salt’s density, high horsepower for pumping.   Also, pumping a hot molten radioactive salt requires sophisticated pump seals to ensure safety and prevent leaks.   As described above, the thorium MSR design will have four main circulating loops, while a PWR system has only three.   However, the cost for MSR hot molten salt circulation pump will be more expensive than the PWR pressurized water circulation pump due to the high-cost alloy required, and the almost double horsepower motor to drive the pump. 

d) If a molten salt pump is not used, circulation can be achieved by a thermal density difference loop.  However, this also presents serious design and control problems.  

e) The steam generator design presents a complex and likely insurmountable problem. Even if a successful design is somehow created, leaks of high-pressure water into the low-pressure molten salt are inevitable and will create all manner of hell. Havoc is too mild for the mess that will happen.   Water that contacts the hot molten salt will explode into steam, possibly rupturing the piping or equipment and flinging radioactive molten salt in all directions.   In addition, the steam generator’s material of construction also must resist the hot, corrosive molten salt.  The steam generator will also likely be made of Hastelloy N, which adds to the already high cost of the plant.   It is also notable that the INL MSR design has two heat exchangers for the steam generator loop, which decreases overall cycle thermal efficiency.   It does not increase safety, as water will leak into the molten salt. 

f) Controlling the plant output, adding more fuel, and removing unwanted reaction byproducts, all are obstacles.  

g) With the low thermal efficiency, MSR plants will require approximately the same quantity of cooling water as uranium fission plants.   That, as discussed previously in TANP, is a serious disadvantage in areas that are already short of water. 

Conclusion

It can be seen then, that thorium MSR has few advantages, if any, over PWR.  They each have three or four circulating loops and pumps, however MSR will have much more expensive materials for the reactor, steam generator, molten salt pumps, and associated piping and valves.   There will be no cost savings, but likely a cost increase.  That alone puts MSR out of the running for future power production.  

The safety issue is also not resolved, as stated above: pressurized water leaking from the steam generator into the hot, radioactive molten salt will explosively turn to steam and cause incredible damage.  The chances are great that the radioactive molten salt would be discharged out of the reactor system and create more than havoc.  Finally, controlling the reaction and power output, finding materials that last safely for 3 or 4 decades, and consuming vast quantities of cooling water are all serious problems.  

The greatest problem, though, is likely the scale-up by a factor of 500 to 1, from the tiny project at ORNL to a full-scale commercial plant with 3500 MWth output.   Perhaps these technical problems can be overcome, but why would anyone bother to try, knowing in advance that the MSR plant will be uneconomic due to huge construction costs and operating costs, plus will explode and rain radioactive molten salt when (not if) the steam generator tubes leak.    There are serious reasons the US has not pursued development of the thorium MSR process.  Reports are, though, that China has started a development program for thorium MSR, using technical information and assistance from ORNL.   One hopes that stout umbrellas can be issued to the Chinese population that will withstand the raining down of molten, radioactive fluoride salt when one of the reactors explodes.  

Previous Articles

The Truth About Nuclear Power emphasizes the economic and safety aspects by showing that (one) modern nuclear power plants are uneconomic to operate compared to natural gas and wind energy, (two) they produce preposterous pricing if they are the sole power source for a grid, (three) they cost far too much to construct, (four) use far more water for cooling, 4 times as much, than better alternatives, (five) nuclear fuel makes them difficult to shut down and requires very costly safeguards, (six) they are built to huge scale of 1,000 to 1,600 MWe or greater to attempt to reduce costs via economy of scale, (seven) an all-nuclear grid will lose customers to self-generation, (eight) smaller and modular nuclear plants have no benefits due to reverse economy of scale, (nine) large-scale plants have very long construction schedules even without lawsuits that delay construction, (ten) nuclear plants do not reach 50 or 60 years life because they require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years that do not always perform as designed, (eleven) France has 85 percent of its electricity produced via nuclear power but it is subsidized, is still almost twice as expensive as prices in the US, and is only viable due to exporting power at night rather than throttling back the plants during low demand, (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands, (thirteen) US nuclear plants are heavily subsidized but still cannot compete, (fourteen), projects are cancelled due to unfavorable economics, reactor vendors are desperate for sales, nuclear advocates tout low operating costs and ignore capital costs, nuclear utilities never ask for a rate decrease when building a new nuclear plant, and high nuclear costs are buried in a large customer base, (fifteen) safety regulations are routinely relaxed to allow the plants to continue operating without spending the funds to bring them into compliance, (sixteen) many, many near-misses occur each year in nuclear power, approximately one every 3 weeks, (seventeen) safety issues with short term, and long-term, storage of spent fuel, (eighteen)  safety hazards of spent fuel reprocessing, (nineteen) health effects on people and other living things, (twenty) nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, (twenty-one) nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island, (twenty-two)  nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima, (twenty-three) near-disaster at San Onofre, (twenty-four) the looming disaster at St. Lucie, (twenty-five)  the inherently unsafe characteristics of nuclear power plants required government shielding from liability, or subsidy, for the costs of a nuclear accident via the Price-Anderson Act, and (twenty-six) the serious public impacts of large-scale population evacuation and relocation after a major incident, or "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" in the language used by the Price-Anderson Act.  Additional articles will include (twenty-seven) the future of nuclear fusion, (twenty-eight) future of thorium reactors, (twenty-nine) future of high-temperature gas nuclear reactors, and (thirty), a concluding chapter with a world-wide economic analysis of nuclear reactors and why countries build them.  Links to each article in TANP series are included at the end of this article.

Additional articles will be linked as they are published. 

Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete

Part Two – Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail

Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct

Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water

Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant

Part Six –  Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs

Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power

Part Eight – No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules

Part Ten -- Nuclear Plants Require Costly Upgrades After 20 to 30 Years

Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go

Part Twelve - Nuclear Plants Cannot Provide Cheap Power on Small Islands

Part Thirteen - US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized

Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete

Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules

Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks

Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term

Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe

Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things

Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown And Explosion

Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979

Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen 

Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga

Part Twenty Four - St Lucie Ominous Tube Wear

Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much

Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants

Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion

Part Twenty Eight - this article 

Part Twenty Nine - High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream

Part Thirty - Conclusion

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California

The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part Three

Subtitle: Nuclear power plants cost far too much to construct.  

The instant cost plus inflation, escalation, and interest on loans adds up to more than $10,000 per kW. 

Vogtle Nuclear Plant and Construction Site
photo - Wiki Commons by Charles C. Watson Jr.

One reason that nuclear power plants are uneconomic is they cost far too much to construct for the amount of power that they produce.  If one were to build a new nuclear power plant in the USA today, the final cost would be more than $10,000 per kW.   Several references support this assertion, Severance (2009), MIT (2003), and California EnergyCommission (2010).  All of these three referenced sources use $4,000 per kW as the overnight cost.

Overnight cost is the cost to construct if the plant could be built all at one time, or “over night”.  Of course, a nuclear power plant cannot be built overnight, as they require years to construct.  The added years increase the cost by escalation of materials and labor, and by interest on construction loans.   

Severance calculates the escalation for materials and labor to be $3,400 per kW, and for interest on construction loans to be an additional $3,100 per kW (figures rounded).   The total then is $4,000 plus $3,400 plus $3,100 equals $10,500 per kW.  A new, twin-reactor plant that produces 2,000 MW net electricity would then cost $21 billion to construct.   However, as indicated in Part Two of this series, Severance and the others did not include funds to make the plant operate safely if a large commercial aircraft crashes into the plant.  Not only the reactor, but the spent fuel storage area and the cooling water system must remain operable, per new NRC regulations.  This brings the cost to construct to approximately $12,000 per kW. 

How does this estimate compare to recent experience in the US?  There are two reactors under construction in Georgia, at the Vogtle plant.  Two more reactors were cancelled in Texas due to the excessive cost estimate at the South Texas Nuclear Project, STNP.   The STNP expansion project would add two reactors to the existing two, and was cancelled after a cost estimate of $17 billion was conceded by the reactor vendors to be too low.  As a result, we will never know how much that plant would cost to construct. 

The Vogtle plant is advertised as costing “only” $14.3 billion for twin reactors at 1100 MW each using the Westinghouse AP-1000 design.  However, cost overruns already incurred have increased the cost to $15.5 billion.  It is notable that Georgia changed the state law to allow the utility to bill customers in advance for construction costs.  This was an attempt to not pay finance charges on the construction loans.  In essence, rate-payers pay more money for electricity they are already using, and the utility company spends that cash for the nuclear construction.  Without this creative financing, the Vogtle plant would be right in line with Severance’s number, $20 billion more or less.   

The Vogtle plant is also plagued by delays in the construction, which would add to the cost if traditional financing were used.   At present (1Q 2014), the reactors are two years behind schedule, with four years to go for the first reactor to start up.  Many problems can arise in the next four years, which will likely add to the cost and delays.  As Severance shows, each year of delay adds approximately $1.2 to $1.6 billion in interest costs to the final cost for a twin-reactor plant.    An interesting account of the Vogtle plant’s progress can be found at 

http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/doe-loan-guarantee-program-vogtle-reactors-34

[Update 6/24/2014: Vogtle facing more delays and cost increases  see link  -- end update]

In Finland, a single-reactor Areva nuclear plant is experiencing similar cost overruns and schedule delays. 

[Update 7/16/2014:  Finland's Areva EPL reactor plant is 7 years behind schedule and Billions of Euros over budget.  Per the article linked below:

“ "Areva was ready to do anything to win the Olkiluoto deal, including downplaying project management deficiencies. They had also previously delivered and commissioned nuclear reactors but they had never undertaken an entire project end-to-end, since the main French contractor had always been the EDF Group (Électricité de France), explained Les Échos editor in chief Pascal Pogam in an interview with Yle’s A-Studio current affairs program.

Based on accounts by parties such as the Olkiluoto owner-operator, the Finnish power consortium Teollisuuden Voima or TVO, Areva is said to have lied about the possibility of constructing a nuclear reactor within the agreed schedule."   see link  -- end update ]

Criticism

It is asserted that other countries can and do build nuclear power plants for approximately $2000 per kW.  As an example, China claims to build AP-1000 reactors at $2,000 per kW, according to world-nuclear.org.   One must pause at that; perhaps the lower labor rate in China is the reason, perhaps lower escalation for materials, and perhaps favorable (read: zero) cost for interest on construction.   However, the same website (world-nuclear.org) states that France’s current program has reactors that cost the US-equivalent of $5,000 per kW for overnight costs.  (Euro 3,700 per kW)

Conclusion

Truth Number 3:  Nuclear power plants cost far too much to construct, more than $10,000 per kW. 

Overview of The Truth About Nuclear Power series:

The series on Truth About Nuclear Power has several main themes:

1         

          Nuclear power operating costs are too high, cannot compete

2         

         Nuclear power costs too much to construct, require government assistance in loan guarantees or bill current ratepayers for construction funds (Georgia).

3         

         Nuclear power is unsafe to operate, near-misses occur frequently, disasters happen too; they must run at steady, high output to reduce upsets; this increases revenue to spread out the very high fixed costs; older reactors are more uneconomic and less safe (San Onofre leaks in new heat exchanger is a prime example)

4         

         Nuclear power is unsafe long-term for spent fuel storage

5         

         Nuclear power consumes far too much precious water

6         

         New designs to overcome these failures are unlikely to work, or to be economic if they can be made to work

a.       Thorium Reactors have serious developmental issues

b.      Modularized, smaller PWR (pressurized water reactor) reactors lose economy of scale advantages

c.       High temperature gas-turbine style reactors are far from developed

d.      Fusion at high temperature e.g. in magnetic bottle, is a pipe dream

7         

         Nuclear death spiral on the demand for power is real and present, customers have a variety of ways to self-generate (distributed generation), and alternatives become attractive as power prices increase.  Nuclear power will increase power prices, the greater the percent nuclear, the more alternatives become attractive. 

      Part One  --  Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete.

Part Two  --  Preposterous Power Pricing in Nuclear Proponents Prevail
Part Three -- this article
Part Four  --  Nuclear Plants Use Far More Fresh Water
Part Five --   Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant

Part Six –  Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs

Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power

Part Eight – No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules

Part Ten - Nuclear Plants Require Costly Upgrades After 20 to 30 Years

Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go

Part Twelve - Nuclear Plants Cannot Provide Cheap Power on Small Islands
Part Thirteen - Nuclear Plants Are Heavily Subsidized
Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete
Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term

Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe

Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things
Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion
Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear

Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much

Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants

Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process
Part Twenty Nine - High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream
Part Thirty - Conclusion

      Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

      Marina del Rey, California