White House Chronicle

News Analysis With a Sense of Humor

Beware of the Loving Embrace of the Government

by Leave a Comment

By Llewellyn King

I am not a government-basher per se. As a reporter, I have covered it too long to say the bureaucracy is always incompetent and lazy. But I have also seen how the government wastes money, veers from one project to another, and is indifferent to any damage done by its autocratic ways.

The government, for better or worse, is the great risk-taker on new technologies. As such, it has added immeasurably to the wealth of the nation, from the creation of the technologies that led to the fracking boom and the Internet to the creative advances one now sees in airliners.

After the Pentagon, the Department of Energy (DOE) is the worst offender of the love-it-then-leave-it school of support for technology innovation.

The country is littered with the carcasses of abandoned projects, such as the Yucca Mountain nuclear spent-fuel repository, which was canceled by the Obama administration to please its political ally, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Price tag: more than $15 billion.

This cancellation has had two other damaging effects: the first is there is still no permanent place to store nuclear spent fuel, which is piling up in America; and the second is the demoralizing of talented engineers and scientists by the government’s vacillation. These effects may be as huge as the price tag.

Gifted people throw themselves into government projects and move their families across the country to the work sites. Then the government says, “Thanks for your work on the project, but we are canceling it. Now, shove off!” These contractor employees do not have government protections; they are subject to government caprice.

In South Carolina, for example, a huge project to build a plant to blend weapons-grade plutonium into nuclear fuel for civilian reactors is 70-percent completed and hanging by a thread. That is because after spending $5 billion, the DOE wants to do something else equally expensive, according to one consultant.

Or take Gen4 Energy, a small, Denver-based company that has been strung along by the DOE and now is preparing pink slips. Its plan is to build a small (25-MWe), advanced nuclear power plant for use at mining sites, military bases and remote places that need electricity, such as Alaskan villages and those in less-developed countries. These reactors would work for 10 years and then would be swapped out and replaced with a new, factory-built module.

Robert Prince, Gen4 Energy’s CEO, who came out of retirement to lead the advanced reactor project, says it is a unique, safe design using tested materials and concepts. The Gen4 advanced reactor design was in the running for development funding from the DOE.

The DOE uses a device called a “funding opportunity announcement”(FOA), to encourage technology developers. In 2013, it issued an FOA and handed out grants of $1 million each to four advanced reactor designers, including General Electric, General Atomics, Westinghouse and Gen4 Energy.

The DOE’s next step was to issue another FOA. This time, the department planned to split $80 million over 10 years for just two designs, provided the grantees came up with their own $10 million. Gen4 and the others prepared detailed proposals and waited.

In January, the DOE picked two rector designs: one from a consortium that includes Bill Gates and the Southern Company, and the other from technology entrepreneur Kam Ghaffarian. Neither were in the first round.

The DOE decision hit Gen4 Energy particularly hard, as it was the smallest contender and probably the one most in need of DOE help as it labored on its design, which had originated in the Los Alamos National Laboratory and was due for feasibility testing at the University of South Carolina, according to Prince. “We really thought we had a shot,” he said.

Not so. Love from the DOE is a sometime thing. Just ask Prince, who now must tell investors and staff that the $10 million or so they have already spent is gone and the business must pack up, technology abandoned, lives shattered, hope sunk.

Gen4 Energy is not alone in its disappointment. Other companies with exciting designs for reactors are also disappointed. Careers, brilliant ideas, and untold dollars are lost in the way the DOE seduces and abandons people and technologies. — For InsideSources


The Coming Carbon Composite Revolution

by 1 Comment

The other day I was musing over how materials throughout history have improved our lives. Take the ordinary candle, which is made of beeswax. It helped us overcome our fear of the dark. The candle provided a totally new capability: People had a portable light source to allow them to see and read anywhere they wanted.

Today we have hand-held devices that not only enable us to read anywhere we want, but also access reading material anywhere it is available in the world. We owe this revolution to ordinary beach sand, which is a source of silicon that makes digital circuits work.

And the remarkable materials of history do not end here. For example, corn provides the basis for biodegradable plastics, and we have even invented flexible concrete that widens its application.

Materials are fundamental to revolutions that improve our lives.

A new emerging class of materials, carbon composites, is revolutionizing the performance of mobile platforms. Carbon fibers, which are thin and flexible like ordinary sewing thread, can dramatically reduce weight, and therefore vehicle fuel consumption, but at the same time provide greater safety because of their toughness.

Defense systems, like the Predator Unmanned Air Vehicle, pioneered the path to exploiting these materials. The X43 scram jet, at nearly 10 times the speed of sound, set the world airspeed record through the use of carbon composites. We are now seeing the emergence of these materials in the Boeing Dreamliner and automobiles like the Chevy Corvette.

Quite remarkably, you can form a new ceramic material from combining beach sand and carbon, like that contained in soot.

As the ancients understood, ceramics can withstand very high temperatures because they do not melt like metals. There are many advantages to high-temperature, high-strength materials:

1. They are the basis of ceramic brakes that resist wear, even at very high temperatures where metals fatigue.

2. They enable the Space Shuttle to withstand intense heat loading upon reentry in the atmosphere.

3. They can also improve engine efficiency; with a properly chosen medium, you can store large amounts of high-temperature heat. You can then use that high-energy medium to drive mechanical devices, like turbines, to produce high-speed motion and with it electricity at high efficiency.

One such ceramic material, silicon carbide, can withstand temperatures of over 2,000 degrees centigrade without loss of strength — metals exhibit fatigue at 700 degrees centigrade. Its properties suggest some important safety applications, such as replacing the metal tubing that surrounds nuclear fuel in light water reactors.

Silicon carbide can also withstand the intense neutron environment in a nuclear reactor over long periods of time, because it has the remarkable property of self-healing. It repairs itself like living cells.

These properties have inspired engineers at General Atomics to develop a new nuclear reactor concept with potentially far-reaching performance advantages. This reactor, Energy Multiplier Module (EM squared), is the smallest-size, highest-efficiency and highest-power small modular reactor in the world. Because the fuel surrounded by silicon carbide tubing can withstand high temperatures (more than 2 ½ times that of current reactors) and transfer its heat to a high-capacity medium, like helium, the reactor system can achieve 53 percent efficiency, nearly twice that of other small modular reactors.

Since the fuel contained by the silicon carbide tubing can stay in the reactor for longer periods of time (nearly seven separate fuel loadings of current reactors), there is much less waste; in fact, 80 percent less waste. And because the fuel and silicon carbide can withstand much higher temperatures, the safety margins are potentially much better.

Like any new technology that can dramatically improve performance, there are economic benefits. We can reduce the price of electricity by 40 percent relative to current reactors. This puts the price of nuclear-generated electricity within the energy mix in the United States. It also makes such reactors much more competitive in international markets.

This innovation comes at a time when nuclear energy has reached a crossroads. So we have a choice: Embrace new technology, as we have in the past, to improve performance, or continue to look in the rear-view mirror with ideas that just hold back human progress.

John Parmentola is senior vice president of General Atomics, a San Diego-based nuclear physics and defense technology company.

The Scramble for a New Nuclear Reactor

by 1 Comment

You can build a car with three or four wheels. But mostly, you would want to do so with four for stability and marketplace acceptance. Basically, you need a wheel at each corner, after which you can do what you like. Flexibility comes in how you use the vehicle.
 
For nuclear power, the reverse of that truism applies. There are many, many ways of building a reactor and fueling it. But its purpose is singular: to make electricity. And making electricity is done in the time-honored way, using steam or gas to turn a turbine attached to a generator.
 
Around the world, some 460 reactors are electricity makers. Even allowing for events like the tsunami which struck Fukushima Daiichi, they are statistically the safest and most reliable electricity makers.
 
Yet they are large and built one at a time; one-offs, bespoke. They rely predominantly on two variations of a technology called “light water,” originally adapted from the U.S. Navy. This has left no room for other designs, fuels and materials.
 
Now there is a new movement to design and build smaller reactors that are not as wedded to the light water technology, although that is still in the game.
 
The U.S. Energy Information Administration calculates the demand for electricity will double by 2050, which means that the demand for nuclear-generated electricity with its carbon-free attributes should soar.
 
To understand the heft of a nuclear plant, which range from about 900 to 1,600 megawatts of electrical output (MWe), one needs a visual comparison. Most of the windmills that are now seen everywhere generate 1 MWe, or a little more when the wind is blowing. So it takes 1,000 or more windmills to do the job of just one nuclear power plant. That stark fact is why China, in environmental crisis, has the world’s largest nuclear construction program.
 
But the days of the behemoth light water reactor plants may be numbered.
 
The challenge comes from what are known as small modular reactors (SMRs), rated at under 300 MWe. Stimulated by a total of $452 million in matching funds from the U.S. Department of Energy, the race is on for these smaller reactors. Call them the new, improved, front-wheel drive reactors.
 
The future for these is so alluring that eight U.S.-based manufacturers are competing for seed funding from the DOE for reactors that range in size from 10 MWe up to 265 MWe. Other countries are also revved up including Argentina, China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and South Africa.
 
Whatever the design, one of the big advantages the new entrants will have is that they will be wholly or partly built in factories, saving money and assuring quality. Some designs, like those of Babcock & Wilcox (which won the first round of funding) and Westinghouse, are sophisticated adaptations of light water technology.
 
Others, like General Atomics’ offering, called the Energy Multiplier Module, or EM2, are at the cutting-edge of nuclear energy. It relies on a high operating temperature of 850 degrees Centigrade to increase efficiency, reduce waste, and even to use nuclear waste as fuel. It is designed to work for 30 years without refueling, relying on a silicon carbide fiber ceramic that will hold the fuel pellets.
 
“The ceramic does not melt and if it is damaged, the material tends to heal itself,” says John Parmentola, senior vice president at General Atomics, which developed the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle and the electromagnetic launch system for aircraft carriers, which replaces the steam catapult.
 
Others designs include thorium fuel instead of uranium, the use of molten salt as a moderator and coolant. Three of them, including General Atomics' design, are so-called fast reactors, where a moderator is not used to slow down the neutrons as they collide with the target atoms. Think fission on steroids.
 
It is as though nuclear designers have thrown off the chains of legacy and are free to dream up wondrous new machines, similar to the start of the nuclear age. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

 

The Scramble for a New Nuclear Reactor

by 1 Comment

You can build a car with three or four wheels. But mostly, you would want to do so with four for stability and marketplace acceptance. Basically, you need a wheel at each corner, after which you can do what you like. Flexibility comes in how you use the vehicle.
 
For nuclear power, the reverse of that truism applies. There are many, many ways of building a reactor and fueling it. But its purpose is singular: to make electricity. And making electricity is done in the time-honored way, using steam or gas to turn a turbine attached to a generator.
 
Around the world, some 460 reactors are electricity makers. Even allowing for events like the tsunami which struck Fukushima Daiichi, they are statistically the safest and most reliable electricity makers.
 
Yet they are large and built one at a time; one-offs, bespoke. They rely predominantly on two variations of a technology called “light water,” originally adapted from the U.S. Navy. This has left no room for other designs, fuels and materials.
 
Now there is a new movement to design and build smaller reactors that are not as wedded to the light water technology, although that is still in the game.
 
The U.S. Energy Information Administration calculates the demand for electricity will double by 2050, which means that the demand for nuclear-generated electricity with its carbon-free attributes should soar.
 
To understand the heft of a nuclear plant, which range from about 900 to 1,600 megawatts of electrical output (MWe), one needs a visual comparison. Most of the windmills that are now seen everywhere generate 1 MWe, or a little more when the wind is blowing. So it takes 1,000 or more windmills to do the job of just one nuclear power plant. That stark fact is why China, in environmental crisis, has the world’s largest nuclear construction program.
 
But the days of the behemoth light water reactor plants may be numbered.
 
The challenge comes from what are known as small modular reactors (SMRs), rated at under 300 MWe. Stimulated by a total of $452 million in matching funds from the U.S. Department of Energy, the race is on for these smaller reactors. Call them the new, improved, front-wheel drive reactors.
 
The future for these is so alluring that eight U.S.-based manufacturers are competing for seed funding from the DOE for reactors that range in size from 10 MWe up to 265 MWe. Other countries are also revved up including Argentina, China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and South Africa.
 
Whatever the design, one of the big advantages the new entrants will have is that they will be wholly or partly built in factories, saving money and assuring quality. Some designs, like those of Babcock & Wilcox (which won the first round of funding) and Westinghouse, are sophisticated adaptations of light water technology.
 
Others, like General Atomics’ offering, called the Energy Multiplier Module, or EM2, are at the cutting-edge of nuclear energy. It relies on a high operating temperature of 850 degrees Centigrade to increase efficiency, reduce waste, and even to use nuclear waste as fuel. It is designed to work for 30 years without refueling, relying on a silicon carbide fiber ceramic that will hold the fuel pellets.
 
“The ceramic does not melt and if it is damaged, the material tends to heal itself,” says John Parmentola, senior vice president at General Atomics, which developed the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle and the electromagnetic launch system for aircraft carriers, which replaces the steam catapult.
 
Others designs include thorium fuel instead of uranium, the use of molten salt as a moderator and coolant. Three of them, including General Atomics' design, are so-called fast reactors, where a moderator is not used to slow down the neutrons as they collide with the target atoms. Think fission on steroids.
 
It is as though nuclear designers have thrown off the chains of legacy and are free to dream up wondrous new machines, similar to the start of the nuclear age. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate