Sure, A Nuclear Plant, But Does It Float?

This one does:

In three years, Russia will have the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, capable of providing energy and heat to hard-to-get areas as well as drinking water to arid regions.

The unique vessel should be operational by 2016, the general director of Russia’s biggest shipbuilders, the Baltic Plant, Aleksandr Voznesensky told reporters at the 6th International Naval Show in St. Petersburg.

The Akademik Lomonosov is to become the spearhead of a series of floating nuclear power plants, which Russia plans to put into mass-production.

This is a pretty large portfolio of activities – electricity, heat, desalination – it’s like the Ginsu knife of nuclear facilities. Although shaped like a boat, it has no means of locomotion. instead, it is towed where ever it needs to be and anchored in place. I suspect what it ends up doing depends on who buys (leases?) it.

Each ship will have two modified KLT-40 naval propulsion reactors together providing up to 70 MW of electricity or 300 MW of heat, which is enough for a city with a population of 200,000 people.

The Russians admit that there’s nothing particularly new about the technology, just its application.

The floating power-generating unit, aimed at providing energy to large industrial enterprises, port cities and offshore gas and oil-extracting platforms, was designed on the basis of nuclear reactors which are equipped on the icebreakers ships. The technology has proved itself for over 50 years of successful operation in extreme Arctic conditions.  

The reaction to the Akademik Lomonosov has been mixed. ZDNet’s David Gewirtz compares it to the scheming of a Bond villain:

I'm also betting that the producers of Bond flicks could build an entire movie around this premise: "See, okay, this evil villain Leonid Arkady has become the head of Spectre and wants to make his own power."

"He doesn't want to be dependent on other countries for power ever again, see, so he's gonna launch this floating nuke plant and then destroy the world and start civilization over, all living off the power of his floating nuke plant."

Wasn’t this Ras-al-Ghul’s plan for Gotham City in Batman Begins? At least Gewirtz suggests that it is the plant that keeps life plausible after the earth is otherwise denuded of people.

The Week’s Keith Wagstaff keeps the issues in better balance and comes out in favor:

Still, the barges themselves don't seem to be any more dangerous than Russia's nuclear-powered ice-breaker ships, which use the same KLT-40 naval propulsion reactors. The reactor-equipped barges would hold 69 people, and would have to be towed to their locations. They would also be able to power 200,000 homes, and could be modified to desalinate 240,000 cubic meters of water per day.

I could have done without this line:

Of course, no nuclear reactor is completely safe.

No car or anything else is completely safe, either. Nuclear reactors come closer than a lot of human activities, but I’d be willing to just retire the line. Consider it a compromise.

Frankly, the Russians have been beavering away at this project since 2007, until running short of money. It maybe a project worth reviving, but it’s worth hesitating before deciding it’s value. If the Russians can find some customers, fine. Right now, it’s an odd variation on small reactors, if also admittedly an interesting one.

---

Mikhail Lomonosov was an 18th century – well, everything. He was a scientist in several fields, a poet, an historian, and several etceteras. His pile of accomplishments is quite high. Russiapedia has a thorough accounting, though you have to accept lines describing him as “the first Russian scientist-naturalist of universal importance.” National pride and all.

Read More

Swinging the Axe at MOX

One of the most vexing aspects of President Barack Obama’s 2014 budget request (as regards topic of blog, naturally) is the deep cut made to MOX facility construction in South Carolina. This is being built at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site and is about 60 percent complete.

But let’s back up. What is the MOX facility? For that matter, what’s MOX? (link to NEI’s member site – you can see the whole thing if you’re a member – but this is the key part)

Shaw AREVA MOX Services is the prime contractor for the design, construction and startup of the Energy Department’s mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility being built at DOE’s Savannah River Site in Aiken, S.C. Under a program managed by DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration, the MOX plant will help dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapons grade plutonium by blending it into fuel for commercial power reactors

And here’s the thing or at least a thing: we share this obligation with Russia, who participated in the megatons to megawatts program to downblend plutonium. This (really great) write-up at World Nuclear Association provides much more detail about the whole program, but we’ll zero in on the MOX facility part:

After environmental and safety reviews, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized construction of a MOX fuel fabrication plant (MFFF) at the DOE Savannah River site in South Carolina by Duke, Cogema, Stone & Webster.  Construction started in August 2007, by Shaw Areva MOX Services.  It will make about 1700 civil MOX fuel assemblies from depleted uranium and at least 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, unlike other MOX plants which use fresh reactor-grade plutonium having around one third non-fissile plutonium isotopes.  US reactors using MOX fuel will need to be licensed for it. The MFFF is designed to turn 3.5 t/yr of weapons-grade plutonium into about 150 MOX fuel assemblies, both PWR and BWR.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer element, could it? It turns plutonium from destructive to constructive in a single pass. The nonproliferation aspect is a considerable upside – in fact, a key point.

NEI’s President and CEO Marvin Fertel called out DOE on this aspect during testimony before the House Appropriations Committee:

NEI supports completion of the MOX fuel facility now under construction at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.  This facility, which is approximately halfway through construction and in which approximately $4 billion has been invested, is important to U.S. national security and as a demonstration of America’s commitment to nonproliferation.

A little more, on the value of the MOX facility to its many partners (and eventual beneficiaries):

It is estimated that the fuel produced from the MOX project would produce $50 billion worth of electricity and enable the federal government to eliminate the expense of storage and surveillance of the plutonium in the future.  Construction and operation of the MOX plant is the result of years of work and commitments with the Russian Federation, the state of South Carolina, and thousands of workers at the site and across the country.  Each of those parties made commitments on the assumption that the U.S. government is a credible partner capable of fulfilling its arms control and nonproliferation commitments.  Failure to complete this project will validate those critics of the government, and the DOE in particular, who claim it simply cannot complete complex projects, particularly those concerning nuclear materials disposition.

That’s – pretty harsh.

But not undeserved. It’s not just that the MOX facility completes an obligation with the Russians to convert this fuel. Or that DOE is risking a large blow to its reputation. Or even that it impacts workers in South Carolina in the midst of a jobs slowdown. It’s the middle part: “Each of those parties made commitments on the assumption that the U.S. government is a credible partner capable of fulfilling its arms control and nonproliferation commitments.” That’s important. That takes in all the rest.

Now, MOX has a science-y profile that makes it seem a safe project to swing a budget axe at. I get that. But this is not an examination into the love life of caterpillars (which, don’t get me wrong, still might be quite important), the MOX facility is a project with many moving parts – many goals fulfilled in several different important policy areas – and proof that America takes those policies seriously. If it doesn’t, it should – they have an existential dimension that requires a serious, committed response. It’s not a lot to ask for.

Note: Some of our commenters pointed out the MOX facility is only for conversion of U.S. fuel. That is correct – I knew that somewhere in my brainpan, but totally muddled it here. I’ve revised the post to make this clearer.

AREVA has a blog on the MOX facility here. Another good place (along with the WNA article cited above) to learn more about the MOX facility and MOX itself.

Read More

The Meteorite Over Russia–and Its Nuclear Facilities

When I think of a meteorite, it’s usually the one that hits Earth at the beginning of The War of the Worlds (1953). In that movie, you start with this:

And end up with this:

The meteorite that flew over Russia today provided some very striking videos itself, minus Martians and heat rays. This video shows both the tail and and the air burst, complete with shattering glass and a lot of car alarms going off:

The title means Explosion in Chelyabinsk. Naturally, we were curious about the nuclear plants in the region. The closest to where many of the videos were taken is also called Chelyabinsk, about 140 miles distant, but it looks as though Rosatom, the Russian nuclear authority, got more questions about Mayak, which is not a reactor but a reprocessing plant.

Russia’s state-run atomic agency, Rosatom, said there were no damage to the nuclear facilities in the region and all operations continued as usual. Mayak nuclear plant -- one of the largest nuclear facilities of Rosatom -- is located in the area that was hit by the meteorite.

“All facilities are working as usual. They haven’t been damaged by the meteorite strike,” a Rosatom source said.

We may say that the risk of a large meteorite striking a nuclear energy facility – or anything else – is vanishingly small. From the NRC’s Safety Regulations:

2.10 Extraterrestrial Activity (Meteorite Strikes, Satellite Falls) Extraterrestrial activity is considered to be natural satellites such as meteors or artificial satellites that enter the earth's atmosphere from space. Because the probability of a meteorite strike is very small (less than 10^-9) (NUREG/CR-5042, Suppl. 2), it can be dismissed on the basis of its low initiating event frequency.

It would be more plausible as a SyFy channel movie than as a reality. There are different opinions as to whether this meteor struck the earth (meteorite) or did not (meteor) – the growing consensus is that it did, but I imagine we’ll find out for sure soon enough. In the meantime, the Washington Post has posted a bunch of information about meteor(ite)s

Q: How common are meteorite strikes?

A: Experts say smaller strikes happen five to 10 times a year. Large impacts such as the one Friday in Russia are rarer but still occur about every five years, according to Addi Bischoff, a mineralogist at the University of Muenster in Germany. Most of these strikes happen in uninhabited areas where they don’t injure humans.

I guess the Post has gone with meteorite on this. This has added considerable excitement to a Friday, not least because it’s the first large meteor(ite) caught on video by so many people, probably a gold mine for astronomers and definitely a exciting event for everyone all over – how else would we have a chance to see something like this? Good to know that Russian consumer society has grown to the point that so many folks have phone video devices.

But:

Let’s remember that this event has had a human toll, with glass blowing out from the air bursts and hurting people in its path. The current figure is more than 1000 injured and no casualties. Let’s hope that latter number remains zero.

---

Now, that’s the meteor. What about the asteroid, DA14? Well, it’s coming upon us even as we speak. You can keep track of it as it passes as close as 17,000 miles. That puts it between the moon and the earth and there’s a slim possibility that it could smack into a satellite. But, let’s be clear, not the earth. The asteroid is about three times the size of the meteor.

Visit here for a dashboard that provides screens for Live Jet Propulsion Laboratory Video, Live NASA TV Channel - to carry fly by later today, Live Russian Television (Russia will be able to see it during their night), What the world is saying about the asteroid on social media (updated live) and What NASA is saying about the asteroid on social media (updated live).

What’s the difference between an asteroid and a meteor? An asteroid is a small object that orbits the sun. (Comets do, too, but generate a small atmosphere and tail; asteroids do not.) Meteors are space debris, smaller than asteroids, but otherwise similar. The Russian meteor(ite) did not chip off from DA14.

No nuclear connection I can find, but who cares? May we continue to live in interesting times.

UPDATE 2:30: That was fast. Asteroid back out to space. We can still see pictures and video of it as it speeds away.

Read More

Turkey: Nuclear-Natural Gas Quid Pro Quo?

No argument here:

One of the world’s fastest-growing economies, Turkey has significant energy needs. The majority Muslim nation’s energy demands will double by 2023, according to one projection.

Nuclear Energy perhaps? Turkey has contemplated it for some years, but lacked a partner to help cover the expense of building the facility- running nuclear energy plants is inexpensive, building one is expensive. Now it has a partner – and in an arrangement that seems close to unique:

The $20 billion venture will be wholly financed by a subsidiary of Rosatom, Russia’s state-controlled nuclear energy corporation.

The Russian firm has agreed to build, own and operate the plant for its entire productive life, with spent fuel sent to Russia for reprocessing. The deal represents an unprecedented level of cooperation between the former adversaries.

Various Turkish officials have a lot of questions about this, some of which involve national sovereignty, always a touchy subject. For example, Turkey doesn’t have a nuclear regulator at present and it’s uncertain whether the new plant will be regulated by the Russians or the Turks. Additionally, it isn’t clear which country will decommission the facility. To be honest, these items can be worked out in time – I suspect it is the Russian connection that gives them an air of urgency.

---

Most interestingly, though, there is the strong implication that Russia isn’t doing this solely (if at all) out of the kindness of its heart:

Gas- and oil-producing giant Russia has enlisted Turkish support for its proposed South Stream pipeline to diversify its access points to European markets.

There’s no direct evidence of quid pro quo, though plenty of evidence of heavy negotiation that included both the nuclear facility and the natural gas line – almost every story I looked at yoke them together, which suggests, at the very least, that the two projects represent a single unit that will proceed in sync. In fact, Turkey and Russia signed 17 (mostly) energy-related agreements in one go, which in itself has aroused a good deal of concern in Turkey.

But most of that number [$100 billion in trade] comes from Turkish imports of Russian oil and gas, and some Turkish energy experts cautioned that the increase would do more good for Russia than for Turkey. The deal for the nuclear plant, scheduled to be built over seven years in the Mediterranean city of Mersin, raised further concerns among some Turks of relying too much on Russia.

This is from the NY Times and it too keeps the natural gas and nuclear projects closely linked. Still, even if there is more correlation than causation here, I wondered if there was more to the Turkish involvement in the natural gas line.

---

Indeed, there is a kind of race going on between Russia and Europe to build a viable natural gas line to serve European markets, with Turkey involved in both of them.

The South Stream gas pipeline is intended to provide a direct connection between suppliers and consumers, thus avoiding transit risks and guaranteeing a continuous energy supply for Europe. Nabucco on the other hand, aims to bring Caspian gas supplies to Europe to reduce dependence on Russian gas imports taking a northern route from the Turkish-Bulgarian border to Austria.

The story doesn’t really explain what Nabucco is all about, but it does point out that diversifying the supply of natural gas is important – and it is. Let’s take that as a given.

Nabucco is a consortium formed by Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria. The European Union supports it and so does the United States – because much of the natural gas will come from Iraq. The pipeline itself stretches from Turkey to Austria, with feeder lines from Georgia and Iraq.

The South Stream line, meanwhile, will carry Russian natural gas through Bulgaria and Turkey and on to Italy. This already tortuous route is necessitated by bypassing Ukraine, which wants no part of the project (Russia accused Ukraine in 2006 of stealing natural gas flowing though the latter, a conflict that got bitter quickly; in 2009, Russia rather roughly shut down the natural gas supply to the west for reasons not fully explained, stranding some countries, such as Bulgaria, in the middle of a harsh winter. See here for more on that). Losing the Ukrainian option meant involving Turkey, even if it provides a less than ideal route.

---

Check out the Nabucco and South Stream web sites for a more complete accounting of the pipelines. Note, too, that I have no brief on natural gas pipelines and their doings. In the parlance of American politicians, no winners and losers here. (Both pipelines serve a practical purpose and both serve natural gas-poor Europe. If Nabucco backstops Russian petulance, consider it a bonus.)

In the end, what’s really worth discussing is a 1200 megawatt Russian nuclear facility at Mersin. It’s ultimately up to the Turks to decide if that’s a good idea and so far, and with some dissent, the decision is – yes. It works for Turkey.

Read More

Megatons to Megawatts Reaches Another Milestone

Yesterday brought some happy news from our friends at USEC:

USEC Inc. announced today that the Megatons to Megawatts(TM) program has converted 450 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium from dismantled former Soviet Union nuclear warheads into low enriched uranium fuel to generate clean, reliable electricity in commercial nuclear power plants. The program is now 90 percent complete.

[...]

Megatons to Megawatts is a 20-year, commercially financed government-industry partnership in which 500 metric tons of Russian weapons-grade uranium is being downblended to low enriched uranium for use as commercial reactor fuel. USEC, as executive agent for the U.S. government, and JSC "Techsnabexport" (TENEX), acting for the Russian government, implement the program.

The Megatons to Megawatts program is on track to downblend the equivalent of 20,000 nuclear warheads into nuclear fuel by the end of 2013. The fuel generated to date has the energy equivalent of more than 193 billion gallons of gasoline, which equals more than 17 months of U.S. consumption. In past years, up to 10 percent of the electricity generated in the United States came from nuclear power plants using this fuel.

We've been writing about this program since the very dawn of the blog, and it's always been great to see USEC marching through milestone after milestone on its way to the completion of the project. Just think of it: what other government/industry partnership has transformed a national security threat into a pillar of energy security?

Read More

The Road to Visaginas

Consider this: when Lithuania closed its nuclear plant in 2009, it lost access to a whopping 70 percent of its total electricity generation – enough to allow it to be a net exporter of electricity, especially to its Baltic neighbors, Estonia and Latvia. The reason one nuclear plant could so dominate the energy conversation is that Lithuania has an exceptionally small population – 3.5 million people.

And though the three Baltic states point their destinies westward, so to speak, there are enduring – or at least well-understood - ties to Russia. Consequently, Russian natural gas now fills in for Lithuania’s lost nuclear energy – reversing the previous arrangement and making the country a net energy importer - a situation the country is very eager to change.

But how to do that?

"I am happy a very important historic decision allowing the further development of nuclear energy in Lithuania ... has been made," {Prime Minister Andrius] Kubilius told reporters at parliament, which backed the concession deal with 74 out of the 141 seats in the house.

That’s how. Concession doesn’t mean conceding, it means that the parliament granted Hitachi the nuclear energy concession.

There are storm clouds:

But the main opposition Social Democrat Party, which leads opinion polls ahead of the election, boycotted the vote in protest at the cost of the project, estimated by the Finance Ministry at up to 6.8 billion euros ($8.64 billion).

Lithuania wants Baltic neighbors Latvia and Estonia, to share the cost together with Hitachi as a strategic investor.

That’s a lot of cash, especially for such a tiny country, but the benefits are exceptionally many. Aside from the obvious ones we mention here all the time, Lithuania really wants to set its own energy destiny. Yet – it’s a lot of cash.

PM Kubilius makes the case:

“This is a very wise and prudent decision. I am happy that the Seimas [parliament] has said yes to a further development of nuclear energy in Lithuania, to the development of the VNPP [the proposed site is called Visaginas] and thus to a possibility of having cheaper electricity in a decade or so, at the same time attracting substantial investments and creating many new jobs in the period of construction.”

That’s the argument that could be made almost anywhere about a big project – but it happens to be true.

PS: There is some movement on the renewable energy front, too, though pretty tiny so far:

The target capacity for 2010 is 200 MW from wind farms, 33 MW from biomass plants, and 132 MW from hydro power plants.

See here for more.

Lithuania’s capital city, Vilnius.

Read More