Small Nuclear Reactor Design Receives Utilities’ Support

A nuclear reactor that is smaller than a rail car recently received the support of three major utilities in its efforts to gain certification by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The mPower reactor, which generates between 125 and 140 MW, holds out the promise of quick manufacture and installation as well as modular implementation.

The Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp. signed an agreement with Babcock & Wilcox (a subsidiary of McDermott International Inc.), pledging support for certification for the company’s innovative reactor design.

The mPower reactor can be cooled by air or water and therefore doesn’t need to be sited near large water sources. This means it could be used in regions that have historically been unable to construct nuclear facilities, such as arid sections of the southwest.

The reactors’ small size and versatility are garnering interest, but they still pose the same waste disposal and security issues that have generated opposition to larger-scale nuclear plants. The mPower reactor is designed to store its own waste on site for the duration of its 60-year lifespan. Still, some worry about the security implications of small reactors becoming widely distributed.

While many utilities are gearing up for the first nuclear project construction in two decades, the large-scale projects being planned can be financially risky for the companies undertaking them.

A senior vice president at Moody’s Investors Service recently told the Wall Street Journal that utilities planning huge capital outlays for nuclear projects could face credit downgrades.

An mPower reactor’s projected cost would be about $750 million. While the capacity is only about one-tenth that of a large nuclear reactor, those larger projects’ $5 to $10 billion price tags are giving some utilities cold feet. Being able to add capacity in stages with the gradual purchase of multiple units is therefore financially attractive.

Additionally, not having to build the reactors on site could reduce construction time by half, making capacity available faster and saving even more on costs.

The reactors would be transported by rail or barge and then buried in concrete on site. Proponents say that their small scale and lack of moving parts make them less vulnerable to dangerous kinds of failure than their larger counterparts.

Return to March 2010 Western Energy News

To sponsor Western Energy News, please contact WEI at 503 231-1994.