MSR Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MSR Review • High temperature heat High thermodynamic efficiency Possibility of air-cooling or low requirement for cooling water Alternative uses as process heat to make cement, synthesizing hydrocarbons, water desalination and district heating Affordably low cost for output energy • Affordably low cost for output energy UK markets Global markets Tremendous business opportunities for the UK Low electricity cost plus safety are the important benefit of the MSR, both for the commercial opportunity potential and addressing climate change. Local planning concerns All civilian nuclear installations can be expected to generate opposition, some expressing rational concern about the environment, some more directed to apprehension about poorly understood potential dangers. In terms of environmental impact, there are smaller inputs of radio-active fuel and less output of radio-active waste. This results in a lower total activity content per installed power. All other impacts could be expected to be similar to any comparable electricity generating installation. Local disruption during construction is minimized if modular components are constructed elsewhere for onsite assembly. Job creation in the UK Setting up a new industry-standard liquid fuelled nuclear power industry would provide many job opportunities at every level. It would, however, diminish activity in current nuclear fuel fabrication, waste handling, and re-processing. Decommissioning, a very labour intensive operation, would almost certainly be maintained or increased for many years to come. Nuclear weapons proliferation Proliferation is a term applied to access - by the wrong people - to nuclear weapons, fissionable material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information. The ‘wrong people’ include nations not signed up to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and to individuals or groups with malign intent. Innovative nuclear technology, and the MSR in particular, is hardly relevant to any of this agenda as it is not a useful route to production of weapons grade substances. Investment in UK nuclear engineering to enhance access to overseas markets An urgent UK commitment to implementation of industry-standard liquid fuelled reactors would restore the UK to its world leader status in cutting edge civilian nuclear power engineering, as it was in the 1960s and 1970s. The foreseeable world market for harnessing sustainable and carbon free energy has been estimated at about one trillion US dollars. The UK can adopt MSR technology to secure a substantial share of this opportunity. Energy Process Developments Ltd. 24
MSR Review High temperature process heat Carbon-free, safe, abundant, available, sustainable and affordable heat can be obtained from the MSR. It promises great benefits including, for example: • Cement, such as Portland cement, is currently made by a process with a very high carbon footprint, partly from the chemical process employed but largely from the amount of process heat required. This is an industry set to benefit greatly from affordable carbon free energy. • The high temperature of heat available will enable the replacement of fossil fuel products, including motor fuels with synthesized hydrocarbons using recognized industrial practice. • Electricity can be co-generated with large scale heat uses such as for district heating and for water desalinisation. Comparison against Other Gen IV Technologies 1. Very high temperature reactor (VHTR) This is based on TRISO fuel technology and as a result operates at low power density. The prismatic or pebble fuel is currently considered non-reprocessable and must therefore go to geological disposal. The volume of that fuel is about 30 times greater than that of PWR fuel for the same power production making the disposal challenge rather larger. The lower decay heat production per unit volume of the fuel compared with PWR fuel is an advantage that could allow closer spacing of the spent fuel in the repository. Since all plans seem to allow the fuel to decay to the point where heat production is quite low before transferring it to a repository this advantage may not be any help. DECC estimate nearly £500,000 per AGR fuel assembly for geological disposal so the cost of disposal of a 30 times greater volume would become a real economic factor. On a global scale, looking at half of electricity production from the VHTR, this disposal problem becomes very serious indeed. 2. Sodium cooled fast reactor (SFR) This concept is intrinsically complicated to engineer safely and prone to fires. Quite a few of these have been built and they have all cost far more than PWRs. It is unrealistic to expect that the cost problem is dramatically reduced, given the high hazard level that is being contained. 3. Supercritical water cooled reactor Experience with coal-fired supercritical systems is that the cost of electricity does not fall compared with subcritical steam systems. The reason is that the extra capital cost cancels out the fuel efficiency savings. For coal, this is worthwhile as it reduces carbon emissions but for nuclear with its lower fuel costs, the effect would be to make the electricity more expensive than from a non-supercritical system. 4. Gas cooled fast reactor This is essentially a sodium fast reactor with the sodium coolant replaced with helium. As such it is an improvement but the need for large high pressure systems would be likely to add just as much cost as was eliminated by removing sodium. The fundamental hazards are still in place with high levels of volatile dangerous fission products and high pressures that can disperse them if containment fails. Massive containment would therefore be needed making cost lower than PWRs unlikely. Energy Process Developments Ltd. 25
Page 1 and 2: MSR Review Feasibility of Developin
Page 3 and 4: MSR Review Executive Summary It is
Page 5 and 6: MSR Review Page 7 Nuclear Regulatio
Page 7 and 8: Introduction MSR Review Obtaining a
Page 9 and 10: MSR Review and just 0.2 full-time e
Page 11 and 12: MSR Review Benefits for private and
Page 13 and 14: MSR Review may be good in themselve
Page 15 and 16: MSR Review MSR 1 - Flibe Energy - L
Page 17 and 18: MSR Review Institute of Technology
Page 19 and 20: MSR Review The Nautilus, commission
Page 21 and 22: MSR Review - bubbling fluorine gas
Page 23: MSR Review Risk from terrorism All
Page 27 and 28: 6 MSR Challenges MSR Review Althoug
Page 29 and 30: MSR Review Funding Challenges Obtai
Page 31 and 32: 7 Nuclear Regulation MSR Review The
Page 33 and 34: 8 Site Selection MSR Review As part
Page 35 and 36: MSR Review Glossary of Terms Accele
Page 37 and 38: MSR Review Ridge National Laborator
Page 39 and 40: MSR Review • thorium used in liqu
Page 41 and 42: Appendix A MSR Activity Today
Page 43 and 44: A1 Discussion MSR Review - Appendix
Page 45 and 46: MSR Review - Appendix A MSR Proposa
Page 47 and 48: MSR Review - Appendix A The reproce
Page 49 and 50: MSR Review - Appendix A neutrons ar
Page 51 and 52: MSR Review - Appendix A This is a c
Page 53 and 54: MSR Review - Appendix A contraction
Page 55 and 56: MSR Review - Appendix A Long Term C
Page 57 and 58: MSR Review - Appendix A The Netherl
Page 59 and 60: A5 Japanese MSR Activity MSR Review
Page 61 and 62: Appendix B Early MSR Activity
Page 63 and 64: MSR Review - Appendix B Fuel salt f
Page 65 and 66: Appendix C Public Opinion Poll
Page 67 and 68: MSR Review - Appendix C Q2 To what
Page 69 and 70: Appendix D Table of Nuclear License
Page 71 and 72: MSR Review - Appendix D Site Owner
Page 73 and 74: MSR Review - Appendix E JLT’s Glo
Page 75:
185 New Kent Road London SE1 4AG UK
show all

MSR Review

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?