Nuclear power may be having problems with its
current range of Generation III reactor types, most of which are upgrades of
standard water-cooled and moderated uranium reactors. There have been long deployment
delays and crippling cost escalations for some of them- the EPR
especially. But, as ever, is is claimed
that new nuclear technologies, the so-called Generation IV, will come to the
rescue. They include revamped fast-neutron plutonium breeder reactors and
molten salt reactors using thorium, along with helium- gas cooled high
temperature reactors, all being developed on both the large and small
scale.
However, none yet actually exist and it will
take time to develop commercial scale plants, or even prototypes. For example,
in an interesting exchange of views in a debate on Thorium run by The Engineer, Fiona
Rayment, director of fuel cycle solutions at the UK’s National Nuclear
Laboratory, said ‘To develop radical new
reactor designs, specifically designed around thorium, would take at least 30
years’: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/december-digital-edition-2/your-questions-answered-thorium-powered-nuclear/
She may be proved wrong, or other options may step in, but it is early days as yet, with, on the one hand, plenty of room for all
types and scales, while on the other, it being unclear whether any of these
ideas will prosper beyond prototypes. To some extent, the Generation IV
technologies seem to be at the same stage as many renewables were twenty years
or so ago, seeking to step beyond some historical precedents. Renewables of
various types have managed that. It remains to be seen if Generation IV
can.
Some estimates of hoped for progress were produced in 2014 by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), as
below. On the basis of the industries past performance, they may be optimistic.
GIF noted that the Fukushima disaster had led to some slow downs.
GIF Generation IV progress estimates
The Generation IV
International Forum ‘Technology Roadmap Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy
Systems’ measures progress according to three (pre-commercialisation) phases:
*The
viability phase, when basic concepts are tested under relevant conditions and
all potential technical show-stoppers are identified and resolved;
*The
performance phase, when engineering-scale processes, phenomena and materials
capabilities are verified and optimised under prototypical conditions; and
*The
demonstration phase, when detailed design is completed and licensing,
construction and operation of the system are carried out, with the aim of
bringing it to commercial deployment stage.
Its 2014
projections were as below, with demonstration phases presumably to follow on
after:
·
Gas-cooled fast reactor: end of viability phase 2022; end
of performance phase 2030.
·
Molten salt reactor: end of viability phase 2025; end
of performance phase 2030.
·
Sodium-cooled fast reactor: end of viability phase 2012; end
of performance phase 2022.
·
Supercritical-water-cooled reactor: end of viability phase 2015; end
of performance phase 2025.
·
Very-high-temperature reactor: end of viability phase 2010; end
of performance phase 2025.
·
Lead-cooled fast reactor: end of viability phase 2013; end
of performance phase 2021.
Certainly,
even on these estimates, there is still a long way to go before
commercialization. GIF’s 2014 update to its 2002 Technology Roadmap review noted that ‘the development of technologies and associated system designs to the
point of commercialisation for each of the six systems, as identified in the
original Technology Roadmap,
would have required considerable investment and international commitment. Since
the “starting point” and R&D funding of the different Generation IV systems
were not equivalent, the degree of technical progress over the past decade has
not been uniform for all systems. A number of participating countries devoted
significant resources to the development of the SFR and VHTR, for example, in
large part due to the considerable historical effort associated with these
technologies. More limited resources were dedicated to the other systems’: http://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_60729/technology-roadmap-update-2013
A more recent review, from
a US perspective, the ‘Advanced Demonstration and Test Reactor Options Study’
carried out by the Argonne, Idaho and Oak Ridge National Labs, looked at
basically the same six Gen-IV advanced reactor technology concepts. It concluded, a little
more optimistically, that ‘the modular
High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR) and sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR)
have high enough technology readiness levels to support a commercial
demonstration in the near future’. It went on ‘These technologies are considered mature as a result of several
successful demonstrations brought about through billions of dollars of public
and private investment in the U.S. over more than fifty years. These systems
are also being built internationally, further confirming the high level of
maturity of these systems as evaluated in this study’.
By contrast it said that ‘the fluoride-cooled high-temperature reactor (FHR) and lead-cooled
fast reactor (LFR) are less mature and require additional research and
development (R&D) and engineering demonstration in the near future.
International and U.S. technology development activities are underway to mature
these technologies, and technology demonstrations are planned. Other options
examined (e.g., gas-cooled fast reactor) were even lower in maturity or did not
have significant U.S. commercial interest (e.g., super-critical water-cooled
reactor)’.
On this basis it suggested that HTGRs and SFRs ‘are mature enough to enable deployment of their first modules at commercial
scale (the commercial demonstration step) in the early 2030s with additional
commercial offerings soon thereafter,’ while the less-mature technologies,
FHR and LFR, ‘are facing a longer
technology development path to commercial offerings because they need a
combination of both the engineering demonstration step and the performance
demonstration step through 2040, prior to commercial offerings in ~2050’: https://art.inl.gov/INL ART TDO Documents/Advanced
Demonstration and Test Reactor Options
Study/ADTR_Options_Study_Rev3.pdf
It will be interesting to see if any of these quite
long term predictions prove to be correct.
As we have seen, not everyone is optimistic about the potential for significant
gains, with a range of doubt being expressed. In a recent an interview-based
review of advanced nuclear prospects in North America, Eaves looks at both
sides of the debate, reporting on the enthusiasm expressed by some
practitioners, but she also quotes former US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Allison Macfarlane as saying ‘I do not see past experience pointing at a
positive direction’ : http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1265353
Macfarlane was talking about High
Temperature Reactors, but as we have seen, that comment might also be
applicable, in the view of many critics, to most of the new nuclear options.
Certainly, there are
multiple challenges. Breakthroughs are always possible, and as one the the
nuclear enthusiast that Eaves interviewed said ‘if
we believe that nothing new can happen and everything is really hard, then it
will be. That’s not to minimize the challenge, but it’s to say, if you start
out thinking something is impossible, it’s very unlikely to happen.’
However, given the past history of nuclear power, and the multiple
challenges, a degree of caution seems wise.
The
above is extracted from a new book for the IoP ‘Nuclear Power: past, present
and future’, which looks at the early days of nuclear power and how some of the
ideas that emerged then are being re-explored as Generation IV: http://www.morganclaypoolpublishers.com/catalog_Orig/product_info.php?products_id=1062
As
for beyond that, Generation V, if you
have hopes for fusion, see this: http://thebulletin.org/fusion-reactors-not-what-they’re-cracked-be10699
