A Straight Dope Classic from Cecil's Storehouse of Human Knowledge

If Europe gets its power from bus-size nuclear reactors, why can't we?

August 14, 2009

Dear Cecil:

Are there really bus-size nuclear reactors all over Europe (especially in France), that can safely power small towns? If so, why don’t we have them?

Cecil replies:

If by “bus-size” you mean “not bus-size,” and by “all over Europe” you mean “not all over Europe,” then sure. Otherwise, no.

You’ll appreciate that in my business the first step often isn’t coming up with an answer, but rather establishing what combination of misinformation and hallucinogens gave rise to the question. Here I’m guessing you must have heard about France’s aggressive (but conventional) nuclear power program and conflated that with a scrambled story propagated by a Web site called Next Energy News. In 2007, Next Energy broke the story of a 200-kilowatt nuclear reactor “only 20 feet by 6 feet,” that “could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.” In other words, small-is-beautiful nukes! Accompanying the article was an artist’s conception of a Toshiba 4S nuclear reactor. Media outlets that should have known better, such as Business Week, spread the news to the wider world.

Problem was, the Toshiba 4S bears no relationship to Next Energy’s description other than being (a) a nuclear reactor and (b) smaller than the battlestar Galactica. My assistant Una surmises that the dimensions, fuel, and other design features of the purported bus-size reactor were taken from a research project sponsored by the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute to bring nuclear power to the moon — the proposed Japanese mininuke would, in fact, measure about 20 by 6. True, the 4S reactor unit would be about 8 feet in diameter by 60 feet tall, which is smallish, but that’s just the engine, not the whole vehicle, if you follow me. The overall plant would be 190 feet long and 90 feet wide, and even Willie Nelson doesn’t have a bus like that.

Still, let’s acknowledge the larger point: major manufacturers are trying to come up with economy-size nuclear reactors, an interesting development when people are looking for non-carbon-footprint-enlarging sources of energy. (OK, these puppies may enlarge our uranium footprint instead, but one issue at a time.) Toshiba is in talks to provide the first 4S (the moniker stands for “super-safe, small, and simple”) to the city of Galena, Alaska, population 700. Remote from other towns and accessible only by air and water, Galena currently relies on diesel generators, which are becoming increasingly costly to fuel. The 4S can run for 30 years without refueling, and Toshiba may donate the $25 million construction cost. The plant boasts numerous safety features: it can’t boil its coolant, it becomes less reactive the hotter it gets, and passive safety systems automatically shut it down when things start to get too Chernobylesque.

Toshiba isn’t the only company thinking about baby nukes. Babcock & Wilcox, one of the big names in nuclear power generation, is working on a reactor supposedly a tenth the size of a typical plant. Even smaller nuke designs include one by Hyperion, a sealed unit about the size of a hot tub that’s buried underground and generates 25,000 kilowatts for seven years. After that you dig it up and replace it. What do you do with the old one? I’ll get back to you on that.

Numerous other tiny or small nuclear reactor designs are in various stages of planning — according to the World Nuclear Association, more than 20 different types. But if you want to find some working pint-sized nuclear reactors right now, look no further than the U.S. Navy, which has been running a highly successful program of small, reliable nuclear reactors for decades. For example: a Los Angeles-class attack submarine has a nuclear power package that’s 42 feet long by 33 feet in diameter, weighs 1,680 tons, and puts out 26,100 kilowatts.

Don’t look for them at Home Depot any time soon, though. The problem with small nukes isn’t the technology but rather the same issues that have hamstrung nuclear power at any scale — security and disposal. Today more than ever you need safeguards to prevent accidents, sabotage, tampering with the reactor to produce plutonium, or just stealing the uranium. The U.S. nuclear permit process is laborious, with no small commercial nuclear reactors in the licensing pipeline at last sighting. Even assuming the Galena nuke clears all regulatory hurdles, it may well be the middle of the next decade before they flip the on switch.

Elsewhere, China is planning some small nuclear plants involving “pebble bed reactors,” which use uranium encapsulated in billiard-ball-sized pellets to generate heat. Russia is working on barge-mounted nuclear plants scheduled to be operational within three years. The French, however, seem to be more interested in projects at the other end of the scale. They’re currently building a European Pressurized Water Reactor, the latest thing in nuclear technology. Capacity: 1.65 billion watts.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

References

“EIS-0259 Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Cruiser, Ohio Class, and Los Angeles Class Naval Reactor Plants.” United States. Department of Energy. April, 1996. http://gc.energy.gov/NEPA/nepa_documents/EIS/eis0259/1-5.pdf

JAERI: http://www.jaea.go.jp/jaeri/english/press/2001/010704/index.html

“Nuclear Power in Russia” World Nuclear Association 4 June 2009 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf45.html

Overview of Galena’s Proposed Approach to Licensing a 4S Nuclear Reactor Based Power Generation Facility Prepared for the City of Galena, Alaska. Rev 02, 3/12/2007. http://www.roe.com/pdfs/technical/Galena/Overview%20Whitepaper%20Rev02.pdf

“Russia relocates construction of floating power plant.” World Nuclear News 11 August 2008 http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Russia_relocates_construction_of_floating_power_plant-1108084.html

Ryan, Morgan. “A Nuke on the Yukon?” American Scientist 97.2 (2009) http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2009/3/a-nuke-on-the-yukon

Safety Features Of The Containment of a 4S Reactor-Based Power Generation Facility - Prepared for the City of Galena, Alaska. Rev 01, 3/12/2007. http://www.roe.com/pdfs/technical/Galena/20070312_Containment_Whitepaper_Rev01.pdf

“Why nuclear?” Hyperion Power Generation http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/why.html

Recent Additions:

A Straight Dope Staff Report by SDStaff VegForLife, Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
A Straight Dope Classic by Cecil Adams
A Straight Dope Staff Report by SDStaff DrMat, Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
A Straight Dope Classic by Cecil Adams
A Straight Dope Staff Report by SDStaff Dex, Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
A Straight Dope Staff Report by SDStaff Hawk,
A Straight Dope Classic by Cecil Adams
A Straight Dope Staff Report by SDStaff Songbird, Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
A Straight Dope Classic by Cecil Adams
A Straight Dope Staff Report by SDStaff Dogster, Straight Dope Science Advisory Board

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope! Your direct line to thou- sands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope? Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.