Post # 86: Nuclear Power – Staring The Dragon In The Mouth

Caution:  this post is extremely "U.S. - centric".  My musings below are focused strictly on the U.S. energy situation.  Things look different outside the U.S....

I am a believer in the "portfolio" approach to energy supply.  You know – spread your dependency across several supply options.  Reduce your vulnerability to problems in any one supply sector.  Some are fond of calling this the "all of the above" approach to energy supply.  And I'm strongly pro-nuclear energy.  I believe it is the only energy source in hand that has the capacity to meet our global energy challenges.  But...

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), based on the last 12 months of electricity generation data, the current U.S. generation mix is approximately 39% coal, 29% natural gas, 19% nuclear, 7% conventional hydro, 6% "other renewables" (primarily solar and wind).

An interesting detail buried in this data is that, despite a very successful industry-wide power uprate program that has yielded ~ 1950 MW of new generation capacity between 2007 and 2012, and expects to add another 500 MWe between 2013 and 2017, nuclear power's slice of the electrical generation portfolio in the U.S. seems destined to diminish over the coming decade.

I really, really hate to say it, but: Nuclear power is in serious trouble in the U.S. 

Why?  Three inter-related drivers:

• Natural Gas – the new "King of Enegia".  Barring the unforeseen, it appears the wonder-tech of fracking (thank you George Mitchell) is destined to deliver natural gas (in the U.S.) at  $4 to $6 /MMbtu for a long, long time.  (Of course an accident in which fracking is proven to contaminate a major groundwater aquifer, or an explosive growth in construction of U.S. LNG export terminals that allows us to economically export our gas might change that.)  Now don't get me wrong.  Cheap natural gas is a good thing.  In fact, the combination of reduced energy demand, improved energy utilization efficiency, and the on-going switch from coal to natural gas-based electricity production enabled the U.S. to achieve a remarkable feat in 2012.  According to EIA data,  U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2012 were almost 12% below our 2005 emissions level.  Remarkable! (See here for a penetrating analysis of this achievement.)

• Aging Nuclear Fleet – the cost of maintaining 40+ year old nuclear plants is rising and appears destined to continue to do so. The recently-announced retirements of Crystal River (~860 MWe),  Kewaunee (~ 550 MWe), and San Onofre 2 & 3 (~ 2150 MWe) are, at the risk of over-simplification, a likely harbinger of things to come.  Depending on whom one believes, as many as 10 to 12 plants additional plants are also under intense financial pressure due to the combined effect of cheap natural gas and plant maintenance costs.  Mark Cooper, at the University of Vermont, recently released a particularly interesting analysis.  He identifies ten plants he believes are unlikely to weather the financial pressures of today's "Gas is King" environment. It's a sobering picture whether or not one agrees with every element of Cooper's analysis.

• High Capital Cost of Nuclear Plant Construction – Five new nuclear plants are "under construction" in the U.S.: Watts Bar 2 (@ $4.5B), Vogtle 3 & 4 (currently estimated to be ~ $14B to $15B by Georgia Power), and Summer 2 & 3 ($10B+).  Given the current market capitalization of the U.S. electrical generating utility industry, this is simply too expensive for all but a few utilities to seriously consider.  (Only five U.S. utilities have current market values in excess of $25B : Duke, Southern, Dominion, Excelon and NextEra Energy.)  A choice in plant sizes would help (a la Small Modular Reactors). Regulated markets help by reducing financing risk and bolstering investor confidence.  But with the capital cost of combined cycle gas turbine plants hovering around $1000 / kWe (see EIA Report here), and natural gas at anything approach $4-$5/MMBtu, nuclear isn't going anywhere fast at a buy-in cost of ~ $6,000+/kWe).  And everyone is watching to see if these new plants can actually be delivered at costs close to their current projected levels.

Possible game changers for nuclear?

I can think of a few:

• As previously mentioned, should there be a case in which fracking is shown to pollute a ground water aquifer, a change in regulatory regime would almost certainly lead to a higher cost of natural gas.

• Another major accident at a commercial nuclear power plant.  Nail in coffin...  Game over.

• A major expansion in domestic LNG export terminals and the associated LNG supply infrastructure would open international markets for our natural gas and would almost certainly lead to an increase in domestic natural gas prices (presuming production levels did not increase in a manner to off-set the international demand).

• The promise of Small Modular Reactors to be more affordable from the capital cost standpoint could prove to be true.  (I'm not sure how this happens if no one is ordering them.)

• New nuclear reactor technology might dramatically reduce the capital and operating cost of nuclear power plants (I'm not sure how this happens when, in real terms, there's almost no significant investment in game-changing nuclear power technology.)

• Regulated electricity markets could expand in the U.S. – lowering investor risk and making large electricity generating capital projects more attractive from the investor standpoint (what are the odds?)

• A radically new, more attractive investment model could be developed, in which more investors come together to finance a nuclear power plant and share the risks – similar to the petroleum platform financing model long used in the oil industry.  Sounds like a "White Knight" scenario...

• Watts Bar 2 and the new Vogtle and Summer plants could come in on schedule and cost.   This would bolster industry and investor confidence.  But I'm not sure that's a game changer.

• Nuclear power could be "socialized" in much the same way other "civil infrastructure" (such as the interstate highway system) has been.  (I don't think so...)

It would be fascinating to apply a supercomputer and some game theory analysis to evaluate various scenario combinations.  Barring that, and based strictly on the computer between my ears, I'm having trouble coming out of this analysis with a picture that bodes well for nuclear power in the U.S. over the next couple of decades.

Sometimes you just have to stare the fiery dragon in the mouth.  Yes, you will probably be burned.  But you'll have a much better understanding of the challenges you face...  Now where did I put those flame-proof goggles?

Just thinking...

Post # 85: Technology, Individual Privacy, and the Bee Hive

Source: Muhammad Mahdi Karim (see usage note below)

We've been reading a lot recently about the impact of modern communications and surveillance technologies on individual privacy.  I've been collecting news accounts from various media sources and have assembled a picture of the implications of technology evolution for individual privacy in the western world (particularly the U.S.).

Imagine a day in which...

• Every phone call you make and every email you send can be monitored by governmental authorities in real time...

• Every click of your computer mouse, and every location you visit with your internet browser can be recorded and analyzed not only be governmental authorities, but by private companies as well...

• Your internet buying habits are tracked and analyzed by e-commerce entities without your knowledge...

• The camera and microphone on your computer and your telephone can be activated without your knowledge by nameless hackers...

• If you carry a cell phone, every movement you make during the day can be tracked (with resolution in some cases down to a few feet) by governmental and private concerns...

• Every trip you make in your automobile can be tracked by governmental surveillance cameras...

• Your medical records (eventually including your personal DNA / genome map) are stored electronically online and can be accessed by anybody who wants them badly enough...

• Every click of your TV remote and your detailed TV viewing habits are monitored by your cable TV provider and the "meta-data" can/is sold to advertisers and content providers...

• Your minute-by-minute household electricity usage (and all that can be inferred from it) are known to your electric utility...

• You (and unknown hackers) can control major appliances in your home from afar via telephone and internet...

• Your buying habits at local retailers can be tracked in detail (do you think those "rewards" come with "no strings attached" ? )

This is enough to give pause to even the most ardent technoholic.

Especially when one understands that "day" is TODAY...

Yes... all of the above and more are actually happening TODAY, if the avalanche of news media accounts are to be believed...

We are evolving to a point in which every individual, as we go about our daily lives, is creating a highly intimate, dynamic, and enormously-large "life data cloud" or "life data echo" (my terms).  Furthermore, unless current trends are halted, much (perhaps most or all) of this data can and will become commoditized, packaged as a data product, and either voluntarily or involuntarily made available to society.

This isn't simply "Big Data".  This is "Huge Data".

Most of what we as individuals know, and most of who we are, will become "common property".  Our lives will, literally, become an open book for all to read...

What has this to do with honey bees?

I used to keep honey bees.  They are wonderful and fascinating creatures.  When a honey bee returns to its hive, it brings its cargo of food and collected treasures.  But it also does a "data dump".  The worker bee conveys to the collective hive all it knows of value about its surroundings – thus allowing the entire hive to benefit from its individual life and effort.  Every worker bee is, in essence, both a "sensor / detector" and a source of effort for a collective community of individuals – each born and destined for a specific role in the community.

Bee hives and bee colonies are indeed a source of something wonderful and highly valued by man.  But honey bees (1) surrender their personal identities for the "good of the hive"; and (2) when honey bees die, they are carried out of the hive and their bodies non-ceremoniously dropped off the front porch. 

This makes we wonder about where we are headed as a society.  Aren't we beginning to look more and more like a bee hive?

Just thinking...


* The image above is presented under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 only as published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License.

Post # 84: Forget the WHY – Just tell me WHEN and WHERE !

I've been really busy the past several weeks with the relaunch of Advanced Technology Insights, LLC (www.ATInsightsLLC.com).  But, as a quick follow-up to my last posting (Your Brain on Big Data), I wanted to share a confirming tidbit I ran across in the WSJ last Thursday (June 13 issue)...

Tucked away on page B6 that day was a fascinating "CIO Journal" blog entry by Rachael King, entitled, "How Spies May One Day Predict The Future".  The content of her posting validates my musing from Post # 83 regarding potential displacement of the need to understand "first principles causality" with what I call "big data correality"...

Within the brief article, Ms. King discusses the potential for using "current data to predict the future."  She discusses a declassified project, named "Open Source Indicators,"...

"...One declassified project, Open Source Indicators, reviews a range of publicly available sources, such as Twitter messages, Web queries, oil prices, and daily stock market activity, to gauge the likelihood of certain societal events.  The goal is to develop continuously automated systems that can predict when and where a disease outbreak, riot, political crisis or mass violence might occur."

According to Ms. King...

"Already the project has been able to accurately forecast student protests that occurred in Paraguay when the president was impeached, and to predict a Hantavirus outbreak in Argentina last year."

All of this reminds of me of the discipline of noise analysis, the use of which allows one to extract meaning (if there's any to be found) from what might otherwise appear to be random, uncorrelated, and non-relevant signals.  It's also closely related to regression analysis, in which one estimates the response  of a dependent variable (say stock price) to a set of (hypothesized) correlated parameters (day of the week, P/E ratio, values of key financial indicators, etc.).  Given some luck, sufficient time, and enough raw data to use in the curve fitting algorithm, it's possible to develop good predictive capabilities without truly understanding any of the underlying or fundamental cause and effect relationships.

So correlation replaces causality.

It raises the question, "Does one really need to know why, so long as one can predict when and where?"

Some heavy physics, metaphysics, and philosophy knotted up in this one...

Just thinking...

Sherrell

Post # 83: Your Brain on "Search" and "Big Data"

I was chatting with a colleague recently about the wonders of technology and the response of the human mind to it.  I'm talking long-term response – evolutionary adaptation of the human mind and human behavior to the increasing role of technology in our lives.  While there are countless facets of this subject to explore, two I find particularly interesting (and a bit unsettling) are the potential influence of "Search" and "Big Data" on human cognitive capabilities.

The Impact of "Search" on the Evolution of the Human Mind

Most of us who spend time on our computers and the "net" rely heavily on search engines for our productivity.  With the "doubling time" of knowledge shrinking to just a few years, what else are we to do?  Think of it.  Traditional encyclopedias (e.g., The Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book Encyclopedia) are on life support.  Out of date before the ink is dry.  And how long since you used an "on-line" version of a traditional encyclopedia?  Can't remember? Why?  Because it's easier to fire-up our favorite "Search Engine" and "Google It" - or go to Wikipedia.  Knowing facts and information (rapidly evolving knowledge) is less important when Search Engines and Wikipedia are the universal portals to knowledge.

So this leads me to wonder... how long before our brains figure-out that retention of facts is less important when there's an (always and instantly accessible) universal conduit for information?  When information is instantly at our fingertips, we don't need to remember it. (Many of my friends in the educational business tell me their students' behavior already reflects a devaluation of memory.)  Still skeptical?  How many phone numbers do you remember now that they can be instantly recalled by your cell phone?  And how will our brain function adapt to this phenomenon?  Hard to imagine... One could see the human mind evolving to increase it's efficiency at assimilating tremendous volumes of data, but not retaining the information for more than very short periods of time (sort of like a college freshman on 5-Hour Energy cramming for tomorrow morning's final exam).  Think of it, long-term memory (except how and where to access our Search Engines and Wikipedia) becomes irrelevant!  Thus the ability to avoid "information" overload, filter out noise, and organize and assimilate information will become much more important.  This leads me to...

The Impact of "Big Data"on the Evolution of the Human Mind

A second evolutionary driver may well be the fact that insights gained via collection and analysis of "Big Data" may overwhelm the "need" to understand cause and effect relationships in our world.  With enough data and computing power, causality can be inferred ("if this happens, then that happens") without the necessity for any real understanding of the underlying fundamental phenomenology and physics of the phenomenon.  Institutions and individuals have grown quite wealthy applying this concept to the stock market since the first supercomputer began crunching stock performance data in endless regression and correlation analyses to determine what happens to the Dow Jones Industrial Average when it rains in Tasmania.  Similar techniques are being applied today to understand the global evolution of killer viruses and health pandemics.  Could we reach the point where simply knowing "A causes B" and the magnitude of that change, is more important than knowing why and how "A causes B"?  And if we do reach that point, how will our brains "reprogram" the functions of our cerebral real estate in response?  Will mankind lose the ability to understand the physics of causality?  Will he care?  Will it matter?

So much for pondering the inter-relationship of technology and the evolution of mens hominis.  Lots of simplifications and assumptions above, but fascinating to ponder...

Just Thinking...

Sherrell

Post # 82: The Hoax of Higher Education

Got your attention?

There was a fascinating article in today's Wall Street Journal entitled, "The Diploma's Vanishing Value," by Jeffrey Selingo.  The article details the fact that many two-year, Associate Degree individuals are beginning their professional careers with salary levels higher than many four-year college graduates.  For instance, in my home state of Tennessee, the article points out that "the average first-year salaries of graduates with a two-year degree are $1000 higher than those with a Bachelor's Degree."

The article goes on to say, "Technical degree holders from the state's community colleges often earn more their first year out than those who studied the same field (my emphasis) at a four-year college."  As an example, the article cites data for graduates in health professions from Dyersburg State Community College.  Turns out, "They not only finish two years earlier than their counterparts at the University of Tennessee, but they also earn $5,300 more, on average, in their first year after graduating."

The phenomenon is not, of course, limited to my home state.  Mr. Selingo also relates that in Virgina, graduates with two-year technical degrees from community colleges make $20,000 more in the first year after college than do many Bachelor's Degree graduates from the state's four-year colleges. (Those of you who wish to know more about this phenomenon can go to http://collegemeasures.org/esm/ for access to a cache of raw data.)

Wow!

I grew up in a world where "higher education" was the key to a better life at a time when there were no two-year community or technical colleges.  I worked my way through seven years of college (with the help of a scholarship or two, a 30 hour a week job when I was a freshman, a wonderful Cooperative Engineering (Co-op) program, and a graduate research grant.  As the cost of "higher education" has skyrocketed in recent years, it has become more and more difficult for a young person to replicate my college experience.

I know of a situation in which a young person recently graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in economics from one our nation's premier universities.  Despite working for "spending money" through all four years of undergraduate study, this young person graduated with over $100,000 in educational loan debt.  Think about that!  What can you do with a Bachelor's Degree in economics that will realistically allow you to pay-off $100,000 in loan debt before you are 40 years old?  I maintain that the educational system failed that young person. 

This is the little "dirty secret" of higher education:  Society does not reward many, many "professions" and fields of study.  It's absolutely wonderful (from the standpoint of personal satisfaction) if one wishes to pursue an undergraduate degree in some field of little commercial value – but we have an obligation to our youth to help them make informed decisions about such things.  And we aren't doing it.

Some hard truths:

• A four-year college isn't right for everyone

• A 4-year Bachelor's Degree in many fields does NOT guarantee a financially-secure future

• Speaking strictly in economic terms, many college degrees aren't worth their cost

• Our nation desperately needs health technicians, physical therapists, radiological protection technicians, instrument technicians, auto mechanics, plumbers, etc., etc., etc., – and one can make a good living in these careers.

How does this relate to energy and society?

Knowledge discovery and innovation often occurs within the hallowed halls of research institutions, national laboratories, and academia.  But SOCIETAL IMPACT only occurs when this knowledge and innovation is converted to hardware installed in the field.  I'm speaking of power plants, electrical distribution networks, hospitals, telecommunications networks, and so forth.  This impact cannot occur without an army of skilled and passionate professionals – many of whom will be trained in our two-year technical colleges and community colleagues.  And many of whom will go on in life to be entrepreneurs who start their own businesses.  When it comes to education, we need it all... Ph.D, Master's Degrees (the degree I still consider to be the ideal "do it all" degree), Bachelor's Degrees, and Associate Degrees – to get the job done!  And the common thread? STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math.

So, "hats off" to our nation's two-year colleges and to those who are increasingly seeing them as a pathway to the future.   These intrepid souls are proving that "grey collars" often lead to "greenbacks" (as in $$$$$).

Just Thinking...

Post # 81: The Rediscovery Of Fire – Dusting Off "Old Technologies"

I've been thinking recently about the role of scientific and technical knowledge retention and transfer in an increasingly complex and fast-paced world.

My thinking was catalyzed by a chorus of recent news releases and internet postings heralding the "new discovery" by someone that molten salt reactors (MSRs) can transform the world by providing cheap electricity, utilizing thorium, burning plutonium, and destroying actinides and radioactive waste.  Without addressing the technical validity of these assertions, let me say I find this "discovery" or more accurately "re-discovery" phenomenon fascinating from the standpoint of knowledge retention and inter-generational knowledge transfer (or lack thereof).  I wonder how many times through the ages fire has been "discovered"?

One of the reasons the molten salt reactor example is so interesting is that virtually all of the asserted benefits of of molten salt reactors were originally cited in the mid-to-late-1950's (when I was a toddler...) In fact, Briant and Weinberg asserted most of the benefits (including the ability to run on uranium, thorium, and plutonium fuel cycles) in their 1957 paper in Nuclear Engineering and Design.  Subsequently, these attributes have been explored on a cyclical basis by a variety of domestic and international entities and collaborations, with the last real flurry of interest in the MSR coming a decade or more ago when there was renewed interest in the potential use of MSRs for radioactive waste transmutation.  But enough about MSRs.  They are simply the example that triggered this stream of consciousness.

Now back to knowledge retention and transfer...

Throughout my 30+ years in the energy R&D field, I've observed that the "dusting-off" of, or "re-look" at "old technologies" and technical approaches is generally wise whenever one or more of Three Criteria are met:

(1) A scientific & technical discovery has been made (such as the understanding of a fundamental phenomenon) that provides a critical insight previously unknown;

(2) Changes and evolution in base or enabling technology (such as a new material) enables one to do things not previously possible;

(3) Externalities (such as constraints, perceived need & urgency, societal / cultural values, changes in competing technology acceptability, etc.) shift or change in a manner that potentially improves the perceived risk/reward math for the "old technology".

Put differently, "old technologies" tend to be (or perhaps should be) revisited when their: (1) technical feasibility, (2) economic viability, or (3) environmental acceptability RELATIVE TO COMPETING TECHNOLOGIES change.

Just as the biosphere is a preserve or "library" of "solutions to problems" (perhaps to problems or challenges we don't even know we face), our knowledge base of "old technologies" is a library of potential solutions to problems (current and future).  But what happens when the "library" is lost?  (After all, who knows what was lost when the Library of Alexandria burned?)

I can't help but recall a situation at ORNL some twenty years ago when I inherited the last remaining "gold files" (three file cabinets) of Art (Arthur P.) Fraas an internationally known energy technology engineer who retired from Oak Ridge in 1976 and passed away in 2011 at the ripe old age of 95.  Art was an engineer's engineer – a remarkably gifted and versatile individual.  Among other things, he was known in the 1950s-1970s as one of the most innovative engineers at work in the development of both advanced terrestrial and space power reactor concepts.  When Art retired in 1976, he transferred what he considered to be his most important personal files, notes, and log books to another engineer, who, in turn, left them in the safe keeping of "management" when he retired. Some time afterwards I was made aware of the files and was asked if I wished to preserve them.  Having been told these were "Art's files", I rushed down to the basement of the old Y-12 calutron building where they were being stored (one of the buildings where the uranium for the "Little Boy" atomic bomb of World War II was enriched).  With great anticipation I approached the first file cabinet and opened the drawer.  It was empty.  I open a second drawer.  Nothing but dust.  A third drawer creaked as I pulled it open and surprised some cockroaches.  And so on with the other two cabinets.  It turns out that, with the exception of two binders of old photographs, all of Arts files had been tossed out about a week earlier in an effort to clear the area of "debris and refuse".   I can't tell you how many times over the past twenty years I wondered what was lost.  I could relate other similar stories.   I guess someday someone with "discover" what we tossed out - or not.

We live in a "throw away" society.  And the good news?  History teaches us that, given enough time, mankind tends to "rediscover" that which has been lost – or at least fragments of what has been lost.  The internet is making it possible to preserve more and more of our society's knowledge legacy. But rather than simply stumbling upon a rediscovery, wouldn't it be wonderful if our "search" capabilities enabled us to stitch together knowledge bases, filtered through the Three Criteria I cited above, to provide society a deliberate and structured approach to re-examining or "mining" historical knowledge and technology bases?  Now that would be a "search engine" for the ages!

Just Thinking,
Sherrell

Post # 80: A SmAHTR Approach To Nuclear Energy?

A couple of years before I left ORNL (in Sept. 2011), I had the privilege of assembling a small team of very bright engineers to tackle an idea I had for a small, high- to very-high temperature nuclear reactor system that would lend itself to distributed generation of process heat and electricity.  The reactor was to be usable both in single-unit applications and in clusters (much like NuScale and mPower small modular light water reactors) to meet higher energy demands.  The concept was to integrate the best features, technologies, and system architecture elements from ORNL's historic Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) and Molten Salt Breeder Reactor (MSBR) concept, gas-cooled reactor graphite fuel technology, ORNL's (then) recent Advanced High Temperature Reactor (AHTR) fluoride salt-cooled reactor concept, and system topology features from integral fast-spectrum liquid-metal cooled reactors. 

Working with a multidisciplinary team of engineers, and with very limited (internal laboratory) funding, our team created a new concept we called SmAHTR (for Small modular Advanced High Temperature Reactors).  SmAHTR can be described as an Integral Salt-Cooled Reactor (iSCR).  Though we did not know it when we first began work on the SmAHTR concept, we subsequently learned our Russian colleagues at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow had developed and published in 2002 a concept for a very small, < 20 MWt, integral, liquid salt-cooled concept they called MARS.  SmAHTR and MARS share some design similarities but have some significant design differences as well. 

The basic design requirements for SmAHTR were: 125 MWt power, ~700 ºC core outlet temperature, and an integral system topology (no coolant loops).  Additionally, the reactor had to be transportable over public roads with common heavy-transport multi-axle semi-tractor-trailors. The system also had to be extremely safe and easily refueled and maintained.  The inherent safety attributes of the system are a result of its very low (~ atmospheric) operating pressure, forgiving nuclear dynamics, large thermal margins, and the use of a coolant that doesn't chemically react with air or water in highly energetic modes.

 The Small modular Advanced High Temperature Reactor (SmAHTR)

The driving force for SmAHTR was our belief that high-temperature salt-cooled reactors would offer superior economics to gas-cooled reactors; would open new doors to nuclear process heat applications; and could be more quickly developed, demonstrated, and licensed that fluid-fueled molten salt reactors (MSRs).  SmAHTR's operating temperature would be limited by current structural material considerations to 700 ºC (probably a little lower in initial implementations), but the basic concept could evolve to much higher temperatures when and if superior compatible structural materials are developed (a long-term proposition).  Fluoride salt-cooled reactors share many materials and component technologies with molten salt reactors.  Thus, in addition to providing a potentially-game changing nuclear energy system, successful development of SmAHTR would resolve many of the technological challenges faced by MSRs as well.  (Those of you who are interested can access the SmAHTR pre-conceptual design report, ORNL/TM-2010/199, here.)

Incidentally... building and working with high performing, innovative teams was one of the activities I enjoyed most during my years at ORNL.  My experience with the SmAHTR team was a particular joy.  Ever team member contributed to the concept.  For instance, Jess Gehin suggested the idea of adapting the old MSBR plate-type moderator assembly for use as a graphite fuel element.  Venu Varma engineered the innovative "bayonet loading" concept we adopted to provide quick access to the various components that load through the top of the reactor.  I could go on...  It's a real thrill to build a great team and be part of its workings...

The Department of Energy and ORNL have done little to move the needle on the SmAHTR concept since I left ORNL.  However, ORNL, with funding from the Department of Energy, has moved forward to integrate some of the best features of SmATHR into the large gigawatt-class AHTR concept, and to continue some critical fluoride salt-cooled reactor technology development.  Time will tell whether someone sees sufficient merit in SmAHTR to further mature the concept.

However, others are building upon the approaches we pioneered with SmAHTR.  I understand Dr. Per Peterson and his team at UC Berkeley are investigating integral versions of their pebble-bed salt cooled reactor concept (which is larger than SmAHTR and originally employed coolant loops).  And just this week, I learned my colleague Dr. David LeBlanc has gone "back to the future" with our SmAHTR concepts to create an interesting small Integral Molten Salt Reactor (iMSR) concept.  The concept (actually two concepts – a 650 MWt and a 60 MWt "ultra-small" version) are discussed in an April 12 posting on the Weinberg Foundation's website.  While retaining many of the general system architectural and component features we specified in SmAHTR, David has discarded SmAHTR's solid graphite fuel and reverted to a liquid fluoride salt fuel.  Since I haven't seen any design details at this point, I'm withholding judgement regarding the engineering viability of the concept.  But from the overall philosophical perspective, David's concept appears to be the most innovative and fresh MSR approach I've seen since the heyday of MSR development in the 1960's and early 1970's.

Both MSRs and salt-cooled reactors (integral or otherwise) face many, many challenges in moving from a pre-conceptual design to an actual prototype system.  But some very bright and passionate folks are expending considerable energy in that direction.

Sometimes it's enjoyable to consider "the road not taken" in nuclear energy.  Alvin Weinberg would be smiling...

Note to cynics:  Everyone in the nuclear energy business is familiar with Admiral Rickover's famous comment about "paper reactors".  Though obviously founded in truth, in my view, far too many have too often used his comments as the "nuclear option" to stymie any serious discussion of real innovation in the nuclear energy field.  So please spare me the comments about paper reactors... Believe me, I know the prospects of developing a new reactor concept in today's environment are remote.  And the prospects of developing a high-temperature fluoride salt-fueled or -cooled system are further impeded BOTH by overly pessimistic AND overly optimistic urban myths and legends from the MSRE days.  I don't own or wear "rose-colored glasses".  The first iSCR or iMSR won't come easily, quickly, or cheaply.  But the payoff could be significant if the challenges can be successfully overcome.

Just Thinking...
Sherrell