Will Next Generation Nuclear Plants Power US EVs? (2012, traction, versus)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are several designs for next generation nuclear plants that have gained traction with the US Department of Energy, and not just for discussion - there are 3 such plants that are being funded by the DOE, in a cost-sharing arrangement with private industry partners building the systems. They are to be built in Washington, Wyoming, and Idaho before 2030.
Each plant has quite a different design, so these projects are intended as a full-scale proof of concept for these technologies. There are some common features at a high level though:
- Small, modular reactors that can be scaled by deploying standard modules in small clusters
- Major components of these reactors are to be built in a factory and transported to the project site - this is intended to control construction quality, reduce implementation cost and time
- Simplified cooling systems have fewer parts to fail, and have failsafe features that allow passive cooling to avert a meltdown
- They require significantly less concrete than the legacy reactor designs currently in use in the US - saving money and energy
The 3 designs are...
The X-Energy Xe-100 will first be built in Washington state. Four 80MW modules of the helium-cooled pebble bed reactors will be installed, and are expected to begin operating in 2028. I like what I have read about this design.
The TerraPower Natrium sodium-cooled reactor will first be built in Wyoming at a planned 345MW scale. It too, is targeting 2028 to commence operations.
The X-Energy Xe-100 will first be built in Washington state. Four 80MW modules of the helium-cooled pebble bed reactors will be installed, and are expected to begin operating in 2028.
That should be enough to power half a million EVs assuming a 90% capacity facor and 5000kWh per EV.
Washington State had 50,520 EVs registered at the end of 2020 and added anoter 16,290 in 2021. It is very possible they will have half a million by 2028.
They are planning on building the new nuclear plant near the old nuclear plant and only operating one in the Pacific Northwest, the 1216 MW Columbia Generating Station
If they build a second nuclear plant 135 miles away near the Celilo Converter Station, near The Dalles Dam on the Columbia River. they can sell electricity to SOCAL. Of course this assumes that California changes their law to permit imports of electiciy generaed from nuclear power.
The Celilo Converter Station was built in 1970 and is owned and operated by the Bonneville Power Administration. It is the northern terminus of the Pacific DC Intertie.
The Dalles Dam (built 1952 to 1957) has Installed capacity 1,878.3 MW (Max.: 2,160 MW) with an Annual generation 6,180 GWh
Last edited by PacoMartin; 09-19-2022 at 02:27 AM..
That should be enough to power half a million EVs assuming a 90% capacity facor and 5000kWh per EV.
Washington State had 50,520 EVs registered at the end of 2020 and added anoter 16,290 in 2021. It is very possible they will have half a million by 2028.
They are planning on building the new nuclear plant near the old nuclear plant and only operating one in the Pacific Northwest, the 1216 MW Columbia Generating Station
If they build a second nuclear plant 135 miles away near the Celilo Converter Station, near The Dalles Dam on the Columbia River. they can sell electricity to SOCAL. Of course this assumes that California changes their law to permit imports of electiciy generaed from nuclear power.
The Celilo Converter Station was built in 1970 and is owned and operated by the Bonneville Power Administration. It is the northern terminus of the Pacific DC Intertie.
The Dalles Dam (built 1952 to 1957) has Installed capacity 1,878.3 MW (Max.: 2,160 MW) with an Annual generation 6,180 GWh
If your point is that it will take more than three such plants...
There have been some new reactors built, but I don't think there have been any new nuclear plants built for decades in the US, and the last time the plants were being built, public sentiment was generally against it. Moreover, while these aren't entirely new ideas - the basic concepts go back decades, they are new designs. So the DOE is going to approach this incrementally - these three reactors are to be the proof of their concepts. If all goes well, there will be more. Frankly, they also need to retire some of the older existing plants and replace their capacity with new, safer plants.
A DOE study found that the nation could save a lot of money implementing next generation nuclear power by building nuclear power plants at the sites of coal power plants - there are a lot of those. You could reuse the land as well as the electrical grid infrastructure there.
"After screening recently retired and active coal plant sites, the study team, comprised of multiple DOE national labs, identified 157 retired coal plant sites and 237 operating coal plants sites as potential candidates for a C2N [carbon-to-nuclear] transition.
The team further evaluated the potential coal power plant sites based on a set of ten parameters, including population density, distance from seismic fault lines, flooding potential, and nearby wetlands, to determine if they could safely host a nuclear power plant.
The team found that 80% of the potential sites, with over 250 GW of generating capacity, are suitable for hosting advanced nuclear power plants. These nuclear power plants vary in size and type and could be deployed to match the size of the site being converted."
Last edited by OutdoorLover; 09-19-2022 at 06:38 AM..
These are pretty exciting. Hopefully they'll lead to much lower levelized cost of energy production for nuclear power plants as intended which has been a pretty large issue globally for nuclear power.
These are pretty exciting. Hopefully they'll lead to much lower levelized cost of energy production for nuclear power plants as intended which has been a pretty large issue globally for nuclear power.
Increased safety, reduced implementation cost and time are the major benefits being sought with these next generation systems, versus the legacy reactors that we currently use.
You will note that the project timeline is ~ 7 years for these first plants, which from my understanding is already faster than traditional nuclear plant projects, which I have heard took 10+ years. But, once these new companies are up and running with their processes, have their relationships established with their parts and materials suppliers, any subcontractors, and the manufacturing facilities for the coarse grained module components have been built and staffed - further reactor construction should be considerably faster than these first demonstration projects. With reduction of the scale of the reactor components and standardization of the design and the parts of reactors and having a trained staff that is dedicated to this module manufacturing, it seems like a lot of efficiencies are possible, versus one-off custom builds on a single huge reactor built on site with ad hoc project teams. Hopefully they can do it 2x-3x faster than it's been done in the past.
If your point is that it will take more than three such plants...
Yes, a lot more.
The Washington state nuclear Columbia Generating Station or CGS (Commission date: December 13, 1984) produces 1216 MW . The original license is for 40 years to expire on December 13, 2024. In May 2012, the NRC approved the 20-year license renewal for CGS,to expire on December 13, 2044
The X-energy prototype which will be co-located with Columbia is 4x80=320 MW and due to come on-line in 2028. So even if they build three more of these X-energy plans, they will just duplicate the original capacity.
these are not really new designs, we followed these in college and I bet I gradded before many of you were bor...er..in sch...er old. in fact at CMU we went over the gutses of the sodium reactor...the BIGGEST problem they have over a PWR is the lack of alternate cooling during SHTF events. any idiot can find a water, hose and duct tape. but in this case not only is the core coolant non-replaceable, it tends to explode or burn vigorously when escaping and it HAS happened. sad facts is, bettis creates new reactor designs or block changes every quarter. non military uses have so many codified obstacles thrown in place - on purpose - that one can say with a straight face, the newest PWR design coming on line is outdated..for example, the NEWEST online everyone knows is watts bar 2. (2016) but its design started effectively 50 years ago in 73. have SOME things been updated in the intervening lifetime? sure. but not the basic design.
these are not really new designs, we followed these in college and I bet I gradded before many of you were bor...er..in sch...er old. in fact at CMU we went over the gutses of the sodium reactor...the BIGGEST problem they have over a PWR is the lack of alternate cooling during SHTF events. any idiot can find a water, hose and duct tape. but in this case not only is the core coolant non-replaceable, it tends to explode or burn vigorously when escaping and it HAS happened. sad facts is, bettis creates new reactor designs or block changes every quarter. non military uses have so many codified obstacles thrown in place - on purpose - that one can say with a straight face, the newest PWR design coming on line is outdated..for example, the NEWEST online everyone knows is watts bar 2. (2016) but its design started effectively 50 years ago in 73. have SOME things been updated in the intervening lifetime? sure. but not the basic design.
The next 'new' thing will probably be a Fusion reactor.
That should be enough to power half a million EVs assuming a 90% capacity facor and 5000kWh per EV.
Im skeptical of the dimensions of your term above. 5000kwh? thats 5Mwh and is about 1/3 the size of the largest planned emd joule locomotive - which takes about a week to recharge..
did you mean total storage? your average tesla uses 34Kwh over 100 miles...which obviously cannot be replaced but at a fraction of its consumption speed.
We would be foolish to not avail ourselves to more nuclear energy to power our grid in the coming years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
