Versatile Test Reactor
The nation’s only large-scale, advanced fast-neutron source for endurance testing of nuclear fuels, sensors and materials. The 300-megawatt (thermal) reactor will be a user facility open to researchers based on the merits of the proposed experiments.
Shared Link
Why the Versatile Test Reactor is Key to Attaining Our Carbon-Free Energy Future
Learn what Eric Loewen, Chief Consulting Engineer at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy has to say about the Virtual Test Reactor and the need in the R&D world.
"This ability gives researchers and developers the empirical data they need to approach the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and say, “I want to build my technology, and here’s proof that I understand the material behavior.” Because, in the end, safety is not dependent on fancy gadgets or artificial intelligence, it’s more about fundamentally understanding physics and how materials behave. Once that is achieved, one can make a safe and reliable system that doesn’t rely on gadgets; and it's that process of design and building that I'm most excited about for VTR, so we can build safe and efficient advanced reactors that provide clean, reliable, and affordable electricity."
Why the Versatile Test Reactor is Key to Attaining Our Carbon-Free Energy Future
Our growing global population is increasing the demand for electricity, which is spurring an all-time high in carbon emissions due to our reliance on fossil-fuel energy sources.
Discussions
Thanks Laura.
The study finds each kilowatt hour of electricity generated over the lifetime of a nuclear plant has an emissions footprint of 4 grammes of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e/kWh). The footprint of solar comes in at 6gCO2e/kWh and wind is also 4gCO2e/kWh.
I think the figures you quoted for carbon emissions are a bit misleading, especially when considering the data from the source publication.
Most studies give a range of carbon emissions per kwh generated. The ranges are broad, making it very difficult to pin down any comparison. In addition, the source of the numbers cited are somewhat speculative, at best, as described in the Carbon Brief article:
«...this chart shows figures for a 2C world in 2050, when global electricity supplies have been largely decarbonised. This shift cuts the impact of indirect emissions due to electricity use, for example at a solar cell factory or nuclear fuel site.»
Also, as explained in the article, variation depends to quite a large degree on location:
«Note that the global average figures in the chart, above, hide wide geographical variation for some power sources, particularly hydro and solar.
The best solar technology in the sunniest location has a footprint of 3gCO2/kWh, some seven times lower than the worst solar technology in the worst location (21gCO2/kWh). Even at this top end, however, solar’s footprint is very low compared to other sources.»
Even the World Nuclear Association, never shy to tout nuclear, however nonsensically, as it describes nuclear waste, lists ranges for different power technologies:
No discussion of CO2 emissions with various forms of electricity generation would be complete without reference to the highly detailed Stanford studies:
Here, nuclear clearly takes a back seat, especially to solar and offshore wind.
It is tempting to simply say that nuclear and renewables are all far lower than fossil fuels, including coal with CCS (“…the study assumes that CCS only captures 90% of power plant CO2”), and leave it at that. But because of the large ranges for the carbon intensities for different power sources, I suggest that the choice of power generation in a particular place and time needs to take into account where on the range of emissions a particular project might be. Hydro especially, may turn out to be in the upper range and result in higher emissions than might be expected. Hydro that does not require a dam or much storage of water may be on the lower range of emissions. Therein may be the niches for nuclear.
I would add that the emissions from disposal of nuclear waste are not included in any of these approximations, since there is, so far, no such thing as final disposal of nuclear waste. I can only guess that it won´t be trivial. Nor is any estimate inclusive of small nuclear power plants, SMRs, as they do not yet exist either. I have seen no estimate of life cycle GHG emissions from those. Presumably, they would result in higher emissions per kwh as they are smaller and more of them would be necessary.
I fear that at least part of the objective of the versatile test reactor program may be similar to the approach for the defense department´s F-35 multi-role fighter plane. Once enough money is spent, it becomes “too big to fail”. Heaven help us if that mentality takes over.
Get Published - Build a Following
The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.
If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.
Sign in to Participate