Small modular reactor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor 

 

Illustration of a light water small modular nuclear reactor (SMR)

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are nuclear fission reactors that are smaller than conventional reactors and centrally manufactured. They can be manufactured at a plant and brought to a site to be installed. Modular reactors allow for less on-site construction, increased containment efficiency, and enhanced safety due to passive nuclear safety features. SMRs have the advantage of integrating passive safety features that do not require human intervention. In the case of a problem, the passive safety features will act in the absence of human supervision. SMRs also require less staffing than conventional nuclear reactors.  SMRs have been proposed as a way to bypass financial and safety barriers that have inhibited the construction of large conventional nuclear reactors in recent decades.

Several designs exist for SMR, ranging from scaled down versions of existing designs to entirely new generation IV designs. Both thermal-neutron reactors and fast-neutron reactors have been proposed, as well as molten salt and gas cooled reactor models.

A main hindrance to commercial use is licensing, since current regulatory regimes are adapted to conventional nuclear power plants. SMRs differ in terms of staffing, security and deployment time. One concern with SMRs is preventing proliferation of nuclear material that is simpler to access than a conventional large-scale reactor. Licensing time, cost and risk are critical elements for the success of SMRs. Studies by the US government evaluating the risks associated with SMRs have led to challenges licensing and deploying them.

Advantages

The main SMR advantage is that they can be manufactured and assembled at a central factory location. They can then be sent to their deployment site and be installed with little difficulty. However, SMR module transport is critical and needs further studies.

Another advantage is that a user can install their first unit, instantly generating revenue and cash flows, then later add other reactors as necessary — cutting back on financing times and saving on multi-year construction processes.

Some larger SMRs require more significant on-site construction, such as the 440 MWe 3-loop Rolls-Royce SMR. The firm is targeting a 500-day construction time.

SMR reactors have a much smaller footprint, e.g. the Rolls-Royce SMR reactor takes 40.000m2 instead of 400.000m2 for a traditional plant.

SMRs can be deployed essentially anywhere. Containment is more efficient, and proliferation concerns are much less. SMRs are more flexible and do not need to be hooked into the local power grid.

Electricity needs in remote locations are usually small and variable. Large plants produce so much power that they require a large grid to distribute their output. SMRs have a load-following design so that when electricity demands are low they can produce less electricity.

Many SMRs are designed to use new fuel ideas that allow for higher burnup and longer fuel cycles. Longer refueling intervals can decrease proliferation risks and lower chances of radiation escaping containment. For reactors in remote areas, accessibility can be troublesome, so longer fuel life can be helpful.

SMRs can power significant users of energy, such as large vessels or production facilities (e.g. water treatment/purification, or mines). Remote locations may have difficulty finding efficient, reliable energy sources. Small nuclear reactors may solve energy problems in many hard-to-reach places. Cogeneration is an option.

Because of the lack of trained personnel available in remote areas, SMRs have to be inherently safe. Many SMRs use passive or inherent safety features. Passive safety features are engineered, but do not require human input to work. A pressure release valve may have a spring that can be pushed back when pressure gets too high. Inherent safety features require no moving parts to work, depending on physical laws.

Types

A nuclear fission chain is required to generate nuclear power.

SMRs come in multiple designs. Some are simplified versions of current reactors, others involve entirely new technologies. All proposed SMRs use nuclear fission. SMR designs include thermal-neutron reactors and fast-neutron reactors.

Thermal-neutron reactors

Thermal-neutron reactors rely on a moderator to slow neutrons and generally use ²³⁵
U as fissile material. Most operating reactors are of this type.

Fast reactors

Fast reactors don't use moderators. Instead they rely on the nuclear fuel to absorb higher speed neutrons. This usually means changing the fuel arrangement within the core, or using different fuels. E.g., ²³⁹
Pu is more likely to absorb a high-speed neutron than ²³⁵
U.

Fast reactors can be breeder reactors. These reactors release enough neutrons to transmute non-fissionable elements into fissionable ones. A common use for a breeder reactor is to surround the core in a "blanket" of ²³⁸
U, the most easily found isotope. Once the ²³⁸
U undergoes a neutron absorption reaction, it becomes ²³⁹
Pu, which can be removed from the reactor during refueling, and used as fuel once it has been prepared.

Cooling

Conventional reactors use water as a coolant. SMRs may use water, liquid metal, gas and molten salt as coolants.

Thermal/electrical generation

Traditionally, nuclear reactors use a coolant loop to heat water into steam, and use that steam to run turbines to generate electricity. Some gas-cooled reactor designs are meant to drive a gas-powered turbine, rather than boil water. Thermal energy can be used directly, without conversion. Heat can be used in hydrogen production and other commercial operations, such as desalination and the production of petroleum products (extracting oil from tar sands, creating synthetic oil from coal, etc.).

Staffing

Several SMR developers claimed that their designs would require fewer staff members because of the inherent/passive safety systems. Reactors such as the Toshiba 4S are designed to run with little supervision.

Load following

Nuclear plants have been historically deployed to cover the base load of the electricity demand.

Some plants might perform daily load cycling (i.e. load following) at between 50% and 100% of their rated power. adjusting output, "Load Following via Cogeneration" runs the reactor at a constant level, while diverting any excess power to an auxiliary use. A suitable cogeneration system needs:

• demand of electricity and/or heat in the region of 500 MWe–1.5 GWt;
• market demand;
• access to adequate input to process;
• flexibility: cogeneration might operate at full load during the night when the request of electricity is low, and be turned off during the daytime.

Economically, it is essential that the investment in the auxiliary system be profitable. District heating, desalination and hydrogen have been proposed as technically and economically feasible options. SMR can be ideal for desalination over night.

Waste reduction

Many SMRs are fast reactors that are designed to have higher fuel burnup rates, reducing the amount of waste. At higher neutron energy more fission products can be usually tolerated. As mentioned before, some SMRs are also breeder reactors that "burn" ²³⁵
U, but convert fertile materials such as ²³⁸
U (which occurs naturally at a much higher concentration than ²³⁵
U) into usable fuels.

Some reactors are designed to run on the thorium fuel cycle, which offers significantly reduced long-term waste radiotoxicity compared to the uranium cycle.

The traveling wave reactor uses the fuel that it breeds. It eliminates the need to remove the spent fuel and "clean" it before reusing any newly bred fuel.

Safety

Diverse safety features can be involved, depending on reactor design. Coolant systems can use natural circulation – convection – to eliminate pumps that could break down, and they keep removing decay heat after the reactor shuts down, so that the core doesn't overheat and melt. Negative temperature coefficients in the moderators and the fuels keep the fission reactions under control, causing the reaction to slow as temperature increases. While passive control is a key selling point, a functioning reactor may also need an active cooling system to back up the passive system, at higher cost. Additionally, SMR designs have less need for containment structures.

Some SMR designs site the reactor and spent-fuel storage pools underground. Smaller reactors would be easier to upgrade quickly and have better passive quality controls.

Economics

A key driver of SMRs are the claimed economies of scale, compared to larger reactors, that stem from the ability to prefabricate them in a manufacturing plant/factory. Some studies instead find the capital cost of SMRs to be practically equivalent to larger reactors. A key disadvantage is that the improved affordability can only be realised if the factory is built in the first place, and this is likely to require initial orders for 40–70 units.

Another economic advantage is that the construction cost is much less than that of constructing a much more complex, non-modular, large nuclear plant. This makes SMR a smaller-risk venture for power companies than other nuclear power plants. However, modularisation and modularity influence the economic competitiveness of SMRs. Financial and economic issues can hinder SMR construction.

Staffing costs per unit output increase as reactor size decreases, due because some costs are fixed. SMR staff costs per unit output can be as much as 190% higher than the fixed operating cost of large reactors.

In 2017 an Energy Innovation Reform Project study of eight companies looked at reactor models with capacity between 47.5 MWe and 1,648 MWe in development. The study reported average capital cost of $3,782/kW, average operating cost total of $21/MWh and levelized cost of electricity of $60/MWh.

Energy Impact Center founder Bret Kugelmass claimed that thousands of SMRs could be built in parallel, "thus reducing costs associated with long borrowing times for prolonged construction schedules and reducing risk premiums currently linked to large projects." GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Executive Vice President Jon Ball agreed, saying the modular elements of SMRs would also help reduce costs associated with extended construction times.

Licensing

A major barrier is the licensing process, historically developed for large reactors, preventing the simple deployment of several identical units in different countries. In particular the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission process for licensing has focused mainly on large commercial reactors. The design and safety specifications, staffing requirements and licensing fees have all been geared toward reactors with an electrical output of more than 700MWe.

Licensing for SMRs has been an ongoing discussion. There was a workshop in October 2009 about licensing difficulties and another in June 2010, with a US congressional hearing in May 2010. With growing worries about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, added to problems with hydrocarbon supplies from foreign countries and accidents like the BP oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, many US government agencies are working to push the development of different licensing for SMRs. However, some argue that weakening safety regulations to push the development of SMRs may cancel out their enhanced safety characteristics.

The U.S. Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program will help license and build two prototype SMRs during the 2020s, with up to $4 billion of government funding support.

Non-proliferation

Nuclear proliferation, or the use of nuclear materials to create weapons, is a concern for small modular reactors. As SMRs have lower generation capacity and are physically small, they are intended to be deployed in many more locations than existing nuclear plants. This means both at more sites in existing nuclear power states, and in more countries that previously did not have nuclear plants. It is also intended that SMR sites have much lower staffing levels than current nuclear plants. Because of the increased number of sites, with fewer staff, physical protection and security becomes an increased challenge which could increase proliferation risks.

Many SMRs are designed to lessen the danger of materials being stolen or misplaced. Nuclear reactor fuel can be low-enriched uranium, with a concentration of less than 20% of fissile ²³⁵
U. This low quantity, non-weapons-grade uranium makes the fuel less desirable for weapons production. Once the fuel has been irradiated, the fission products mixed with the fissile materials are highly radioactive and require special handling to remove safely, another non-proliferation feature.

Some SMR designs are intended to have lifetime cores so the SMRs do not need refuelling. This improves proliferation resistance by not requiring any on-site nuclear fuel handling. But it also means that there will be large inventories of fissile material within the SMRs to sustain a long lifetime, which could make it a more attractive proliferation target. A 200 MWe 30-year core life light water SMR could contain about 2.5 tonnes of plutonium toward the end of its working life.

Light-water reactors designed to run on the thorium fuel cycle offer increased proliferation resistance compared to conventional uranium cycle, though molten salt reactors have a substantial risk.

The modular construction of SMRs is another useful feature. Because the reactor core is often constructed completely inside a central manufacturing facility, fewer people have access to the fuel before and after irradiation.

Reactor designs

Numerous new reactor designs have been proposed across the world. A small selection of the most notable current SMR designs is listed below.

  Design   Licensing   Under construction   Operational   Cancelled   Retired

List of small nuclear reactor designs

Name	Gross power (MWe)	Type	Producer	Country	Status
4S	10–50	SFR	Toshiba	Japan	Detailed design
ABV-6	6–9	PWR	OKBM Afrikantov	Russia	Detailed design
ACP100	125	PWR	China National Nuclear Corporation	China	Under Construction
TMSR-LF1	10MW	MSR	China National Nuclear Corporation	China	Under Construction
ARC-100	100	SFR	ARC Nuclear	Canada	Design: Vendor design review. One unit approved for construction at Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in December 2019.
MMR	5	MSR	Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp.	Canada	Licensing stage
ANGSTREM	6	LFR	OKB Gidropress	Russia	Conceptual design
B&W mPower	195	PWR	Babcock & Wilcox	United States	Cancelled in March 2017
BANDI-60	60	PWR (floating)	KEPCO	South Korea	Detailed design
BREST-OD-300	300	LFR	Atomenergoprom	Russia	Under construction
BWRX-300	300	ABWR	GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy	United States	Licensing stage
CAREM	27–30	PWR	CNEA	Argentina	Under construction
Copenhagen Atomics Waste Burner	50	MSR	Copenhagen Atomics	Denmark	Conceptual design
CMSR	100	MSR	Seaborg Technologies	Denmark	Conceptual design
EGP-6	11	RBMK	IPPE & Teploelektroproekt Design	Russia	Operating (not actively marketed due to legacy design, will be taken out of operation permanently in 2021)
ELENA	0.068	PWR	Kurchatov Institute	Russia	Conceptual design
Energy Well	8.4	MSR	cs:Centrum výzkumu Řež	Czechia	Conceptual design
Flexblue	160	PWR	Areva TA / DCNS group	France	Conceptual design
Fuji MSR	200	MSR	International Thorium Molten Salt Forum (ITMSF)	Japan	Conceptual design
GT-MHR	285	GTMHR	OKBM Afrikantov	Russia	Conceptual design completed
G4M	25	LFR	Gen4 Energy	United States	Conceptual design
GT-MHR	50	GTMHR	General Atomics, Framatom	United States,France	Conceptual design
IMSR400	185–192	MSR	Terrestrial Energy	Canada	Conceptual design
TMSR-500	500	MSR	ThorCon	Indonesia	Conceptual design
IRIS	335	PWR	Westinghouse-led	international	Design (Basic)
KLT-40S	35	PWR	OKBM Afrikantov	Russia	Operating
MHR-100	25–87	HTGR	OKBM Afrikantov	Russia	Conceptual design
MHR-T	205.5x4	HTGR	OKBM Afrikantov	Russia	Conceptual design
MRX	30–100	PWR	JAERI	Japan	Conceptual design
NP-300	100–300	PWR	Areva TA	France	Conceptual design
NuScale	45	PWR	NuScale Power LLC	United States	Licensing stage
Nuward	300–400	PWR	consortium	France	Conceptual design, construction anticipated in 2030
PBMR-400	165	HTGR	Eskom	South Africa	Cancelled. Postponed indefinitely
RITM-200	50	PWR	OKBM Afrikantov	Russia	Operational since October 2019
Rolls-Royce SMR	440	PWR	Rolls-Royce	United Kingdom	Design stage
SEALER	55	LFR	LeadCold	Sweden	Design stage
SMART	100	PWR	KAERI	South Korea	Licensed
SMR-160	160	PWR	Holtec International	United States	Conceptual design
SVBR-100	100	LFR	OKB Gidropress	Russia	Detailed design
SSR-W	300–1000	MSR	Moltex Energy	United Kingdom	Conceptual design
S-PRISM	311	FBR	GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy	United States/Japan	Detailed design
TerraPower	10	TWR	Intellectual Ventures	United States	Conceptual design
U-Battery	4	HTGR	U-Battery consortium	United Kingdom	Design and development work
VBER-300	325	PWR	OKBM Afrikantov	Russia	Licensing stage
VK-300	250	BWR	Atomstroyexport	Russia	Detailed design
VVER-300	300	BWR	OKB Gidropress	Russia	Conceptual design
Westinghouse SMR	225	PWR	Westinghouse Electric Company	United States	Cancelled. Preliminary design completed.
Xe-100	80	HTGR	X-energy	United States	Conceptual design development
Updated as of 2014. Some reactors are not included in IAEA Report. Not all IAEA reactors are listed there are added yet and some are added (anno 2021) that were not yet listed in the now dated IAEA report.

Proposed sites

Canada

In 2018, the Canadian province of New Brunswick announced it would invest $10 million to attract SMR research to New Brunswick with a potential site for a demonstration project at the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station. It was later announced that SMR proponents Advanced Reactor Concepts and Moltex would open offices in New Brunswick with the potential of developing sites at Lepreau.

On 1 December 2019, the Premiers of Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan signed a memorandum of understanding  "committing to collaborate on the development and deployment of innovative, versatile and scalable nuclear reactors, known as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)." They were later joined by Alberta in August 2020.

China

In July 2019 China National Nuclear Corporation announced it would start building a demonstration ACP100 SMR on the north-west side of the existing Changjiang Nuclear Power Plant by the end of the year.

On 7 June 2021, the construction of a demonstration ACP100 small modular reactor (SMR) at Changjiang in Hainan province has been approved by China's National Development and Reform Commission.

In July 2021 China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) has started construction of the first commercial onshore nuclear project using its homegrown “Linglong One” small modular reactor (SMR) design.

Poland

Polish chemical company Synthos declared plans to deploy a Hitachi BWRX-300 reactor (300 MW) in Poland by 2030. A feasibility study for the project was completed in December 2020 and licensing process started with Polish National Atomic Energy Agency.

United Kingdom

In 2016 it was reported that the UK Government was assessing sites for deploying SMRs in Wales - including the former Trawsfynydd nuclear power station - and on the site of former nuclear or coal-fired power stations in Northern England. Existing nuclear sites including Bradwell, Hartlepool, Heysham, Oldbury, Sizewell, Sellafield and Wylfa are thought to be possibilities. The target cost for a 440 MWe Rolls-Royce SMR unit is £1.8 billion for the fifth unit built. In 2020 it was reported that Rolls-Royce has plans to construct up to 16 SMRs in the UK. In 2019, the company received £18 million to begin designing the modular system, and the BBC claims that the government will provide an additional £200 million for the project as a part of its green plan for economic recovery.

United States

In December 2019 the Tennessee Valley Authority was authorized to receive an Early Site Permit (ESP) by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for potentially siting an SMR at its Clinch River Site in Tennessee. This ESP will be valid for up to 20 years, and addresses site safety, environmental protection and emergency preparedness associated. TVA has not made a technology selection so this ESP is applicable for any of the light-water reactor SMR designs under development in the United States.

The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) announced a teaming partnership with Energy Northwest to explore siting a NuScale Power reactor in Idaho, possibly on the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory.

The Galena Nuclear Power Plant in Galena, Alaska was a proposed micro nuclear reactor installation intended to reduce the costs and environmental pollution required to power the town. It was a potential deployment for the Toshiba 4S reactor.

 

Pro-nuclear movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-nuclear_movement 

 

Patrick Moore in 2009. Moore was opposed to nuclear power in the 1970s but has come to be in favor of it. Moore is supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and in 2009 he chaired their Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. As chair, he suggested that the public is not as opposed to nuclear energy as they were in decades past.

There are large variations in peoples’ understanding of the issues surrounding nuclear power, including the technology itself, climate change, and energy security. Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on imported energy sources. Opponents believe that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment. While nuclear power has historically been opposed by many environmentalist organisations, some support it, as do some scientists.

Context

During a two-day symposium on "Atomic Power in Australia" at the New South Wales University of Technology, Sydney, which began on 31 August 1954, Professors Marcus Oliphant (left), Homi Jehangir Bhabha (centre) and Philip Baxter, share a cup of tea

Nuclear energy remains a controversial area of public policy. The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, when it "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies", in some countries.

Proponents of nuclear energy point to the fact nuclear power produces virtually no conventional air pollution, greenhouse gases, and smog, in contrast to fossil fuel sources of energy. Proponents argue perceived risks of storing waste are exaggerated, and point to an operational safety record in the Western world which is excellent in comparison to the other major kinds of power plants. Historically, there have been numerous proponents of nuclear energy, including Georges Charpak, Glenn T. Seaborg, Edward Teller, Alvin M. Weinberg, Eugene Wigner, Ted Taylor, and Jeff Eerkens. There are also scientists who write favorably about nuclear energy in terms of the broader energy landscape, including Robert B. Laughlin, Michael McElroy, and Vaclav Smil. In particular, Laughlin writes in "Powering the Future" (2011) that expanded use of nuclear power will be nearly inevitable, either because of a political choice to leave fossil fuels in the ground, or because fossil fuels become depleted.

Lobbying and public relations activities

Globally, there are dozens of companies with an interest in the nuclear industry, including Areva, BHP, Cameco, China National Nuclear Corporation, EDF, Iberdrola, Nuclear Power Corporation of India, Ontario Power Generation, Rosatom, Tokyo Electric Power Company, and Vattenfall. Many of these companies lobby politicians and others about nuclear power expansion, undertake public relation activities, petition government authorities, as well as influence public policy through referendum campaigns and involvement in elections.

The nuclear industry has "tried a variety of strategies to persuade the public to accept nuclear power", including the publication of numerous "fact sheets" that discuss issues of public concern. Nuclear proponents have worked to boost public support by offering newer, safer, reactor designs. These designs include those that incorporate passive safety and Small Modular Reactors.

Since 2000 the nuclear industry has undertaken an international media and lobbying campaign to promote nuclear power as a solution to the greenhouse effect and climate change. Though reactor operation is free of carbon dioxide emissions, other stages of the nuclear fuel chain – from uranium mining, to reactor decommissioning and radioactive waste management – use fossil fuels and hence emit carbon dioxide.

The Nuclear Energy Institute has formed various sub-groups to promote nuclear power. These include the Washington-based Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which was formed in 2006 and led by Patrick Moore. Christine Todd Whitman, former head of the USEPA has also been involved. Clean Energy America is another group also sponsored by the NEI.

In Britain, James Lovelock well known for his Gaia Hypothesis began to support nuclear power in 2004. He is patron of the Supporters of Nuclear Energy. SONE also campaigns against wind power. The main nuclear lobby group in Britain is FORATOM.

As of 2014, the U.S. nuclear industry has begun a new lobbying effort, hiring three former senators — Evan Bayh, a Democrat; Judd Gregg, a Republican; and Spencer Abraham, a Republican — as well as William M. Daley, a former staffer to President Obama. The initiative is called Nuclear Matters, and it has begun a newspaper advertising campaign.

Organizations supporting nuclear power

In March 2017, a bipartisan group of eight senators, including five Republicans and three Democrats introduced S. 512, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA). The legislation would help to modernize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), support the advancement of the nation's nuclear industry and develop the regulatory framework to enable the licensing of advanced nuclear reactors, while improving the efficiency of uranium regulation. Letters of support for this legislation were provided by thirty-six organizations, including for profit enterprises, non-profit organizations and educational institutions. The most prominent entities from that group and other well-known organizations actively supporting the continued or expanded use of nuclear power as a solution for providing clean, reliable energy include:

• The Alvin Weinberg Foundation
• American Nuclear Society (ANS)
• Anthropocene Institute
• Battelle Memorial Institute
• Breakthrough Institute
• Bright New World
• Californians for Green Nuclear Power
• Canadian Nuclear Society
• Canadian Nuclear Association
• Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)
• Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness
• Clean Air Task Force
• ClearPath Foundation
• Climate Coalition
• Comitato Nucleare e Ragione
• Earth Institute
• Energy for Humanity
• Energy Reality Project
• Environmentalists for Nuclear (EFN)
• Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy Australia
• Environmental Progress
• European Atomic Forum
• Finnish Greens for Science and Technology (Viite – Tieteen ja teknologian vihreät ry)
• FOTA4Climate
• Generation IV International Forum (GIF)
• Gen IV Nuclear Inc.
• Generation Atomic
• Global Nexus Initiative
• Greens for Nuclear Energy
• Holy See
• International Nuclear Societies Council representing thirty-six national nuclear societies from around the world.
• Long Now Foundation
• Mothers for Nuclear
• National Mining Association
• New Mexico Mining Association
• North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NAYGN)
• The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI is the main lobby group for companies doing nuclear work in the USA.)
• Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization
• Nuclear For Net Zero
• Nuclear Friends Foundation
• Nuclear Innovation Alliance
• Nuclear Institute (Formerly the British Nuclear Energy Society (BNES) and the Institution of Nuclear Engineers (INucE), representing nuclear professionals in the U.K.)
• Nuclear Matters
• Nuklearia e. V.
• Partnership for Global Security
• Third Way
• Thorium Energy Alliance is an association studying and advocating for advanced reactor designs.
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Global Energy Institute
• U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council
• Les voix du nucléaire, France
• Women in Nuclear
• The World Nuclear Association is the only global trade body.
• Wyoming Mining Association

The United States generates about 19% of its electricity from nuclear power plants. Nearly 60% of all clean energy generated in the U.S. comes from nuclear power. Studies have shown that closing a nuclear power plant results in greatly increased carbon emissions as only burning coal or natural gas can make up for the massive amount of energy lost from a nuclear power plant. Even though there have long been protests against nuclear power, the effect of long-term scrutiny has elevated safety within the industry, making nuclear power the safest form of energy in operation today, despite the fact that many continue to fear it. Nuclear power plants create thousands of jobs, many in health and safety jobs, and seldom experience protests from area residents, as they bring large amounts of economic activity, attract educated employees and leave the air clear safe, unlike oil, coal or gas plants, which bring disease and environmental damage to their workers and neighbors. Nuclear engineers have traditionally worked, directly or indirectly, in the nuclear power industry, in academia or for national laboratories. More recently, young nuclear engineers have started to innovate and launch new companies, becoming entrepreneurs in order to bring their enthusiasm for using the power of the atom to address the climate crisis. As of June 2015, Third Way released a report identifying 48 nuclear start-ups or projects organized to work on nuclear innovations in what is being called "advanced nuclear" designs. Current research in the industry is directed at producing economical, proliferation-resistant reactor designs with passive safety features. Although government labs research the same areas as industry, they also study a myriad of other issues such as nuclear fuels and nuclear fuel cycles, advanced reactor designs, and nuclear weapon design and maintenance. A principal pipeline for trained personnel for US reactor facilities is the Navy Nuclear Power Program. The job outlook for nuclear engineering from the year 2012 to the year 2022 is predicted to grow 9% due to many elder nuclear engineers retiring, safety systems needing to be updated in power plants, and the advancements made in nuclear medicine.

Individuals supporting nuclear power

Many people, including former opponents of nuclear energy, now say that nuclear energy is necessary for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. They recognize that the threat to humanity from climate change is far worse than any risk associated with nuclear energy. Many of these supporters, but not all, acknowledge that renewable energy is also important to the effort to eliminate emissions. Early environmentalists who publicly voiced support for nuclear power include James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia hypothesis, Patrick Moore, an early member of Greenpeace and former president of Greenpeace Canada, George Monbiot and Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog. Lovelock goes further to refute claims about the danger of nuclear energy and its waste products. In a January 2008 interview, Moore said that "It wasn't until after I'd left Greenpeace and the climate change issue started coming to the forefront that I started rethinking energy policy in general and realised that I had been incorrect in my analysis of nuclear as being some kind of evil plot." There are increasing numbers of scientists and laymen who are environmentalists with views that depart from the mainstream environmental stance that rejects a role for nuclear power in the climate fight (once labelled "Nuclear Greens," some now consider themselves Ecomodernists). Some of these include:

Scientists

James Edward Hansen

 

Prof. Barry W. Brook

• Wade Allison, Emeritus Fellow of Keble College, Oxford. Author of Radiation and Reason, Nuclear is for Life.
• Hans Blix, Director General Emeritus of the IAEA
• Professor Geraldine Thomas, Molecular Pathology Imperial College
• Professor Ian Fells
• Pascale Braconnot, Climate Scientist, IPSL/LSCE, lead author for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and Fifth Assessment Report
• Francois-Marie Breon, Climate Researcher, IPSL/LSCE, lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
• Ben Britton, Ph.D, Deputy Director of the Centre for Nuclear Engineering, Imperial College London
• Ken Caldeira, Professor Stanford University
• Stephen Chu, former U.S. Secretary of Energy, former Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
• David Dudgeon, Chair of Ecology & Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, China
• Erle C. Ellis, Ph.D, Professor, Geography & Environmental Systems, University of Maryland
• Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Martin Freer, Professor, Head of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Director of the Birmingham Energy Institute (BEI)
• Richard Garwin, American physicist
• James Hansen Director of Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions Program and the Earth Institute, Columbia University
• David Keith
• Andrew Klein, Immediate Past President, American Nuclear Society
• Marilyn Kray, President, American Nuclear Society
• James Lovelock
• David J. C. MacKay (also an author and former DECC chief scientific advisor; died 2016)
• Michael McElroy
• Elizabeth Muller, Founder and Executive Director, Berkeley Earth
• Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, UC Berkeley, Co-Founder, Berkeley Earth
• Ernest Moniz, former U.S. Secretary of Energy
• James Orr, Climate Scientist, IPSL/LSCE
• Didier Paillard, Climate Scientist, IPSL/LSCE
• Per Peterson, professor of nuclear engineering
• Peter H. Raven, President Emeritus, Missouri Botanical Garden. Winner of the National Medal of Science, 2001
• Paul Robbins, Director, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Didier Roche, Climate Scientist, IPSL/LSCE
• Carlo Rubbia, Nobel Laureate in Physics
• Jeff Terry, Professor of Physics, Illinois Institute of Technology
• Myrto Tripathi, Climate Policy Director, Global Compact France
• Tom Wigley, Climate scientist at the University of Adelaide

Non-scientists

• Ansel Adams (Photographer, former Sierra Club director; died 1984)
• John Asafu-Adjaye, PhD (Senior Fellow, Institute of Economic Affairs, Ghana, Associate Professor of Economics, The University of Queensland, Australia)
• John Barrasso (U.S. Senator (R) from Wyoming)
• Mathijs Beckers (Writer and Filmmaker) created "Climate Zero Hour the Documentary"; author of "Climate Zero Hour", the "Non-Solutions Project"
• Tom Blees (Author of "Prescription for the Planet")
• Michael Bloomberg (Former Mayor of New York City, co-author with Carl Pope of "Climate of Hope")
• M.J. Bluck, Ph.D (Director, Centre for Nuclear Engineering, Imperial College London)
• Cory Booker (U.S. Senator (D) from New Jersey)
• Stewart Brand (Writer, speaker, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog)
• Carol Browner (Former EPA administrator and ECCP (White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy) director in the Obama administration, author of "Comments on Proposed Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada," Leadership Council, Nuclear Matters)
• Robert Bryce (Writer)
• Shelley Moore Capito (U.S. Senator (R) from West Virginia)
• Jimmy Carter (Former President of the United States, peace ambassador)
• Bruno Comby (President, Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy)
• Mike Crapo (U.S. Senator (R) from Idaho)
• Gwyneth Cravens (Journalist, author of "Power to Save the World")
• Wolfgang Denk (European Director Energy for Humanity)
• Leslie Dewan (Nuclear engineer and entrepreneur)
• Chris Dickman (Conservation scientist, University of Sydney)
• Martin Ferguson
• Deb Fischer (U.S. Senator (R) from Nebraska)
• Christopher Foreman (Author of "The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice," School of Public Policy, University of Maryland)
• Bill Gates (Founder of Microsoft Corporation, philanthropist, investor)
• Kirsty Gogan (Managing Partner, LucidCatalyst; Co-Founder, TerraPraxis (Previously: Executive Director, Energy for Humanity)
• Joshua S. Goldstein (Professor Emeritus of International Relations, American University)
• Chris Goodall (Author)
• Malcolm Grimston (Author of "The Paralysis in Energy Decision Making," Honorary Research Fellow, Imperial College London)
• Mel Guymon (Guymon Family Foundation)
• Robert Hargraves (Physicist, author)
• Steven F. Hayward (Senior Resident Scholar, Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, Berkeley)
• Ben Heard (Executive Director, Bright New World)
• Paul Howes
• Jim Inhofe (U.S. Senator (R) from Oklahoma)
• Claude Jeandron (President, Save the Climate French association)
• Sunjoy Joshi (Director, Observer Research Foundation, Delhi, India)
• Andrew C. Kadak (Engineer)
• John G. Kemeny
• John Kerry (former U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator (D) from Massachusetts)
• Ro Khanna (U.S. Representative (D) from CA-17)
• Margi Kindig (Former board chair, Clean Wisconsin)
• Steve Kirsch (Silicon Valley entrepreneur, CEO Token)
• Ross Koningstein (Former Google executive and senior engineer)
• Janne M. Korhonen (Engineer)
• Bob Latta (U.S. Representative (R) for Ohio's 5th congressional district)
• John Laurie (Founder and Executive Director Fission Liquide)
• Joe Lassiter (Professor Harvard Business School)
• John Lavine (Professor and Medill Dean Emeritus Northwestern University)
• Martin Lewis (Department of Geography Stanford University)
• Zion Lights (Author, activist, founder of Nuclear For Net Zero)
• Bjørn Lomborg (Researcher, author)
• Mark Lynas (Journalist, activist, author The God Species, Six Degrees)
• Kaz Makabe (Author)
• Rick Maltese (Founder, Energy Reality Project)
• Joe Manchin (U.S. Senator (D) from West Virginia)
• Haydon Manning
• Richard Martin (Author)
• Michelle Marvier (Professor, Environmental Studies and Sciences Santa Clara University)
• John McCain 2008 United States presidential debates
• Steve McCormick (Former CEO, The Nature Conservancy)
• Jerry McNerney (U.S. Representative (D) for California's 9th congressional district)
• Alan Medsker (Coordinator, EnvironmentalProgress.org - Illinois)
• Eric Meyer (Founder, Generation Atomic)
• Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India
• George Monbiot (Journalist)
• Hugh Montefiore (Priest, former Friends of the Earth trustee; died 2005)
• Patrick Moore (Co-founder of Greenpeace, and former president of Greenpeace Canada)
• Lauri Muranen (Executive Director, World Energy Council Finland)
• Lisa Murkowski (U.S. Senator (R) for Alaska)
• Ted Nordhaus (Author, chairman of the Breakthrough Institute)
• Carl Page (Computer scientists, clean technologist, developer of E-Groups (later Yahoo Groups) and President of the Anthropocene Institute)
• Reese Palley (Author)
• Rauli Partanen (Author, "The World After Cheap Oil," and "Decarbonizing Cities: Helsinki Metropolitan Area")
• Fred Pearce (Journalist, author)
• Steven Pinker (Harvard University, author of The Better Angels of Our Nature)
• Rezwan Razani (Founder of Footprint to Wings)
• Richard Rhodes (Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, author of "Nuclear Renewal" and The Making of the Atomic Bomb)
• Jeffrey Sachs (Economist, director of The Earth Institute)
• Samir Saran (Vice President Observer Research Foundation, Delhi, India)
• David Schumacher (Director of "The New Fire")
• Peter Schwartz (Author of "Art of the Long View")
• Joseph M. Schuster, chemical engineer and author
• Michael Shellenberger (Author, co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute, President of Environmental Progress)
• Robert Stone (Director; his film Pandora's Promise features pro-nuclear environmentalists)
• Nobuo Tanaka (Chairman, Sasakawa Peace Foundation, former Executive Director, International Energy Agency)
• Frank Thelen (Businessman, investor)
• Stephen Tindale (Chief Executive of the Alvin Weinberg Foundation and former executive director Greenpeace UK)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (U.S. Senator (D) from Rhode Island)
• Bryony Worthington (Environmental campaigner, UK House of Lords member)
• Tim Yeo (Chair, New Nuclear Watch Europe, former chair Energy and Climate Change Parliamentary Select Committee)
• Jiang Zemin (Former General Secretary of the Communist Party of China)
• Xi Jinping (Current General Secretary of the Communist Party of China)
• Elon Musk (Billionaire entrepreneur)

Open letter signatories

Climate and energy scientists in 2013: there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

Conservation biologists in 2014: to replace the burning of fossil fuels, if we are to have any chance of mitigating severe climate change […we] need to accept a substantial role for advanced nuclear power systems with complete fuel recycling

The following is a list of people that signed the open letter:

• Ken Caldeira
• Kerry Emanuel
• James Hansen
• Tom Wigley
• Barry Brook (co-author)
• Corey J. A. Bradshaw (co-author)
• Andrew Balmford
• Daniel T. Blumstein
• Scott Carroll
• F. Stuart Chapin III
• Richard Hobbs
• Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
• William F. Laurance
• Thomas Lovejoy
• Robert May (also a UK House of Lords member)
• Hugh Possingham
• Peter H. Raven
• Richard Shine
• Chris D. Thomas

Future prospects

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, located in France, is the world's largest and most advanced experimental tokamak nuclear fusion reactor project. A collaboration between the European Union (EU), India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and the United States, the project aims to make a transition from experimental studies of plasma physics to electricity-producing fusion power plants. However, the World Nuclear Association says that nuclear fusion "presents so far insurmountable scientific and engineering challenges". Construction of the ITER facility began in 2007, but the project has run into many delays and budget overruns. The facility is now not expected to begin operations until the year 2027 – 11 years after initially anticipated.

Another nuclear power program gaining momentum recently is The Energy Impact Center's OPEN100 project. Revealed in 2020, OPEN100 is an open-source approach to nuclear plant design. The large costs commonly associated with nuclear power are one of the main objections for supporting research and investing in nuclear plants. In an effort to quell those concerns, the OPEN100 project aims to share the engineering behind successful nuclear deployment in the past to create the foundation for a new generation of power plants that are safe, economically sound, and also easier to build.

 

Industrial Revolution in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution_in_the_United_States 

 

The Industrial Revolution was an epoch during the first 100 years of United States history where the economy progressed from manual labor and farm labor to a greater degree of industrialization based on labor. There were many improvements in technology and manufacturing fundamentals with the result that greatly improved overall production and economic growth in the United States. The Industrial Revolution occurred in two distinct phases, the First Industrial Revolution occurred during the latter part of the 18th century through the first half of the 19th century and the Second Industrial Revolution advanced following the Civil War. Among the main contributors to the First Industrial Revolution were Samuel Slater's introduction of British Industrial methods in textile manufacturing to the United States, Eli Whitney’s invention of the Cotton gin, E. I. du Pont’s improvements in chemistry and gunpowder making, and other industrial advancements necessitated by the War of 1812, as well as the construction of the Erie Canal among other developments.

Samuel Slater – "Father of the American Industrial Revolution"

Origins

As Western Europe industrialized in the mid-to-late 1700s, the United States remained agrarian with resource processing, gristmills, and sawmills being the main industrial, non-agrarian output. As demand for U.S. resources increased, canals and railroads became important to the economic growth as transportation necessitated and the sparse U.S. population, especially in areas where resources were being extracted such as the Western frontier. This made it necessary to expand technological capabilities, which led to an Industrial Revolution in America as entrepreneurs, businesses competed with and learned from each other to develop better technology, fundamentally altering the U.S. economy. Some technologies that advanced the Industrial Revolution in the U.S. were appropriated from British designs by ambitious British entrepreneurs hoping to use the technology to create successful companies in the U.S.

One entrepreneur who is most associated with starting up the textiles industry in the U.S. and who initially brought the textile technology to the U.S. was Samuel Slater. Slater learned that Americans were interested in textile techniques used in England, but since exporting such technical designs were illegal in England, he memorized as much as he could and departed for New York. Moses Brown, a leading Rhode Island industrialist secured the services of Slater, with Slater promising to recreate British textile designs. After an initial investment by Brown to fulfill initial requirements, a mill successfully opened in 1793 being the first water-powered roller spinning textile mill in America. By 1800, Slater's mill had been duplicated by many other entrepreneurs as Slater grew wealthier and his techniques more and more popular, with Andrew Jackson calling Slater the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution". But Slater also earned the pejorative "Slater the Traitor" from many in Great Britain who felt he betrayed them in bringing British textile techniques to the Americas.

With the invention of the modern mechanical cotton gin by Eli Whitney in 1793, farmers now had the means to make cotton farming much more profitable. The era of King Cotton was underway by the early 1800s such that by the mid-1800s, Southern plantations supplied 75% of the world's cotton. The introduction of this new cotton gin was as unexpected as it was unprecedented. British textiles had expanded with no change in ginning principles in centuries. For the cotton producer, up front costs were higher but productivity improvement were clear and Whitney's original 1793 gin design was copied by many and improved upon.

The du Pont family emigrated to the United States due to repercussions from the French Revolution, bringing with them expertise in chemistry and gunpowder. E.I. du Pont observed that the quality of American gunpowder was poor, and so opened the Eleutherian Mills a gunpowder mill on Brandywine Creek in 1802. The mill served as home for du Pont's family as well as a center of business and social life, with employees living on or near the mill. The company grew rapidly and by the mid-19th century had become the largest supplier of gunpowder to the United States military.

Pennsylvanian Robert Fulton proposed plans for steam-powered vessels to both the United States and British governments in the late 1700s. Having developed significant technical knowledge in both France and Great Britain, Fulton returned to the United States working with Robert Livingston to open the first commercially successful steamboat operating between New York City and Albany. Fulton built a new steamboat sturdy enough to take down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, he was an early member on a commission to plan the Erie Canal, and Fulton designed the first working muscle-powered submarine, the Nautilus.

The Erie Canal was proposed in the 1780s, then re-proposed in 1807 with a survey being funded in 1808. Construction began in 1817 and the original canal was about 363 miles with 34 numbered locks, from Albany to Buffalo. Prior to the canal, bulk goods were limited to shipping by pack animal, there were no railways and water was the most cost-effective way to ship bulk goods. Use of this new canal was faster than using carts pulled by draft animals and cut transport costs by about 95%. The canal gave New York City's port a significant advantage over all other U.S. port cities and contributed to a growth in population in New York state as well as opening up regions farther west to settlement.

Labor and finance

Textile Mill in Winooski, Vermont

The First Industrial Revolution was marked by shift in labor, where in the United States an outwork system of labor shifted towards a factory system of labor. Throughout this period, which lasted into the mid-19th century much of the U.S. population remained in small scale agriculture. Despite a smaller percentage of the population working in industry then, the U.S. government did take action to try and expand and aid U.S. industry. This can be seen early in the nation's history with Alexander Hamilton's proposal of the "American School" ideas which supported high tariffs to protect U.S. industry. This idea was embraced by the Whig Party in the early 19th century with their support for Henry Clay's American System. This plan, proposed shortly after the War of 1812, supported not only tariffs to protect U.S. industry but also canals and roads to support the movement of manufactured goods around the country. As was the case in Britain, the First Industrial Revolution in the United States revolved heavily around the textile industry. Early U.S. textile plants were located next to rivers and streams as they would use the running water to power the machinery in the plant. This meant that much of the factories of the First Industrial Revolution existed in the Northeastern United States.

To aid the expansion of industry, Congress chartered the Bank of the United States in 1791, giving loans to help merchants and entrepreneurs secure needed capital. However, Jeffersonians saw this bank as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power, so when its charter expired in 1811, the Jeffersonian-dominated Congress did not renew it. State legislatures were persuaded to charter their own banks to continue helping merchants, artisans, and farmers who needed loans, and, by 1816, there were 246 state-chartered banks. With these banks, states were able to support internal transportation improvements, such as the Erie Canal, which stimulated economic development.

Impact of the Industrial Revolution on the United States

The Industrial Revolution altered the U.S. economy and set the stage for the United States to dominate technological change and growth in the Second Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age. The Industrial Revolution also saw a decrease in labor shortages which had characterized the U.S. economy through its early years. This was partly due to a transportation revolution happening at the same time, low population density areas of the U.S. were better able to connect to the population centers through the Wilderness Road and the Erie Canal, with steamboats as well as rail transport. This led to a phenomenon of urbanization which increased the labor force available around larger cities such as New York City and Chicago, lessening the classic American labor shortages of the time. Also, quicker movement of resources and goods around the country drastically increased trade efficiency and output while allowing for an extensive transport base for the U.S. to grow during the Second Industrial Revolution.

Blanchard lathe, powered by water, for creating stock identical to a pattern.

Techniques to make interchangeable parts were developed in the US, and allowed easy assembly and repair of firearms or other devices, minimizing the time and skill needed to repair or assemble devices. By the beginning of the Civil War, rifles with interchangeable parts had been developed, and after the war, more complex devices such as sewing machines and typewriters were made with interchangeable parts. In 1798, Eli Whitney obtained a government contract to manufacture 10,000 muskets in less than two years. By 1801, he had failed to produce a single musket and was called to Washington to justify his use of Treasury funds. There, he created a demonstration for Congress in which he assembled muskets from parts chosen randomly from his supply. While this demonstration was later proved to be fake, it popularized the idea of interchangeable parts, and Eli Whitney continued using the concept to allow relatively unskilled laborers to produce and repair weapons quickly and at a low cost. Another important innovator is Thomas Blanchard, who in 1819 invented the Blanchard lathe, which could produce identical copies of wooden gun stocks.

Interchangeable parts made the development of the assembly line possible. In addition to making production faster, the assembly line eliminated the need for skilled craftsmen because each worker would only do one repetitive step instead of the entire process.

The first Industrial Revolution had a profound effect on labor in the U.S. Companies from the era, such as the Boston Associates, would recruit thousands of New England farm girls to work in textile mills. These girls often received much lower wages than men, though the work and pay gave young women a sense of independence that they did not feel working on a farm. The First Industrial Revolution also marked the beginning of the rise of wage labor in the United States. As wage labor grew over the next century, it would go on to profoundly change American Society.