The Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) is the Dark Horse of today's nuclear reactors. It's modern, efficient, resilient, broadly licensed, and proven buildable in record time. (a 🧵...)
Having been built before, it's (obviously) a fully-complete design, already licensed and ready to rock in the USA, Japan, and the UK. Here's its design certification from the NRC: nrc.gov/reactors/new-r…
The first-ever ABWRs were built in record-setting time, 37 months & 15 days from groundbreaking to initial criticality. How's that for too slow? 😮
Hitachi made an excellent video detailing how exactly they were able to deliver this. They simulated all aspects of construction in elaborate detail and perfected it before breaking ground.
The US had a pair of ABWRs ready to build, with full COLs issued at South Texas Project. But the project was ahead of its time; people weren't quite as excited about reliable clean energy as they are now. It'd be great to revive the project! nrc.gov/reactors/new-r…
Taiwan started but never finished building a pair of ABWRs. Attempts to authorize their completion have started several times, but struggled. Now is an excellent time to complete them. They could make 5.5% of Taiwan's electricity clearly and reliably en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungmen_N…
ABWRs have excellent Gen III resilience. They're designed for 0.3G earthquakes. Lungmen was upgraded to 0.4G. Their resilience was proven at KK6-7 during the Chuetsu earthquake in 2007, well above the design basis. (H/T @Brian_C_Johnson) tepco.co.jp/en/hd/ourbusin…
ABWRs can load follow elegantly. You just change the speed of the internal recirculation pumps and the water density in the core changes, adjusting power rapidly without control rod motions or chemical shim. This can help meet demand and integrate nicely with renewables.
Being the first type of reactor designed specifically for power stations, BWRs don't have steam generators or dissolved boric acid, greatly reducing several long term operational issues encountered at PWRs.
In terms of getting climate impact from action, completing the already-started ABWRs in Taiwan may be about the most impactful thing anyone can do. What's it going to take to convince Taiwan to get these beautiful modern machines up and running? @AngelicaOung?
And in the US, let's get someone restarting the efforts on the South Texas Project ABWRs!
(BTW thanks to @Brian_C_Johnson, one of the world's top nuclear engineers, for helping list the wonderful things about ABWRs. Too bad he doesn't tweet much.)
Direct link to that Shika 2 construction video here:
In case anyone has doubts, the ABWR is absolutely an advanced reactor. It's built based on decades of hard-learned experience from previous BWR models, plus it says so right in the name. The best definition of 'advanced' is when a design evolves based on real world experience.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A nuclear reactor on the moon!? Yes, this is a great idea, and totally doable!
You need lots of power on the moon for people to live there full-time. They need heat, closed-cycle life support, and oxygen from oxides in the soil or ice. Here's a nuclear-powered lunar base 🧵
The habitat might be a 16 m inflatable ball with 1 meter of radiation shielding. You need shielding from cosmic rays and solar flares anyway, and yes it helps with the reactor radiation too.
There are many reactor types, some higher TRL than others. Here's the SP-100 concept, a 900 kWe system that couples enriched lithium liquid metal coolant to a bunch of Stirling engines
Everyone says nuclear power is over-regulated. With word of the big nuclear EOs looming, I spent a few weeks talking to people in the nuclear industry to find out which reforms they thought would be most helpful, and which they were nervous about. Here are the top 12 (a🧵...)
1:🌳Keep fixing NEPA. We should default to Environmental Assessments instead of Environmental Impact Statements on sites with previous or generic EIS from within the last ~10 years, and for low-risk reactors. We should accelerate the ongoing implementation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and remove/reduce the need for power and alternates analyses sections for any reactor.
Specifically, someone could ask the NRC staff to proceed with rulemaking to update/modernize 10 CFR Part 51. Overlaps nicely with ongoing work to implement FRA. See SECY-24-0046. Remove the requirement in 10 CFR 51.20 to require an environmental impact statement for nuclear power plant applications and power uprates. Provide allowance for categorical exclusions for advanced reactors and power uprates in 10 CFR 51.22. In lieu of categorical exclusions, allow for environmental assessment for first-of-a-kind facilities in 10 CFR 51.21 and a categorical exclusion for nth-of-a-kind facilities and power uprates in 10 CFR 51.22.
2: 📈Increase NRC staffing focused on new reactor licensing. The nuclear ecosystem is thriving, and dozens of new applicants are expected to hit the NRC soon. Staff has to be there in order to perform the reviews. I’d say this was the biggest and most common concern from across the nuclear industry.
While doing so, it's important to continue the positive implementation of cultural changes brought in by the ADVANCE act and related legislation. The NRC is there to ensure that the numerous benefits we can get from nuclear power are achieved safely.
Crazy story: in the early 1990s, the USA purchased 6 TOPAZ-II space nuclear reactors from the USSR/Russia and flew them to New Mexico for testing. These reactors had thermionic cells around each of their 37 fuel pins: "Thermionic Fuel Element"! (a 🧵...)
The 115 kWt reactors used 93% enriched annular UO₂ fuel elements, which transferred heat through a cesium gap, converting about 5% of the heat to electricity. Outside each pin, they had electromagnetically-pumped liquid metal sodium-potassium eutectic coolant.
The pins were dispersed in a ZrH₁.₈₅ moderator. There were beryllium reflectors and beryllium control drums, each with a 116° strip of boron absorber. They had LiH radiation shielding. The reactors consumed 0.5 g of Cesium per day.
Let's talk shielding of microreactors. Here's an operable 3.3 MWt nuclear microreactor on a flatbed (the ML-1). a 🧵
Looking inside that tank, we see numerous shield structures surrounding the core. 2 inches of lead, 'shield solution', more lead, and 2 feet of 2% borated water. Optimization suggested putting 3" of tungsten in there with the lead.
Numerous combinations of internal shields were considered. The challenge in shielding is that you have to stop all energies of gammas and neutrons.
Calder Hall, the world's first full-scale atomic power station, was opened by Her Majesty the Queen on October 17th, 1956 in the UK. 67 years, 7 months, and 12 days later, you now can read this neat 1961 informational booklet about it that I just scanned (short thread 1/n).
Eventually, 4 units were built. They were natural uranium metal fueled, CO₂-cooled, graphite-moderated, and clad with a magnesium alloy called 'Magnox'. (2/n)
These were 'dual-use' reactors, designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium for nuclear weapons and also 60 MW of electricity. Here's one of the turbine halls (3/n)
The Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) was a prototype reactor by LA for sodium-cooled graphite-moderated reactors (SGRs). It was thought that high-temperature, low-pressure sodium coolant with fuel-conservative neutron moderation would make low-cost nuclear plants. (a thread, 1/n)
Then, as today, the best way to verify that your economic suppositions are correct was to build and operate a prototype. Originally the SRE was going to dump all its heat to air, but they ended up hooking it up to generator and putting electricity on the local grid. (2/n)
Here's the reactor building being erected using the tilt-up concrete slab method. (3/n)