China to pioneer ‘pebble bed’ N-reactor:
If successfully commercialised, the pebble bed reactor would be the first radically new reactor design for several decades. It would push China to the forefront of development of a technology that researchers claim offers a new “meltdown-proof” alternative to standard water-cooled nuclear power stations.
While the development of newer, more efficient technology is certainly laudable, ownership of the reactor is a mixed bag. On the one hand Huaneng is privately owned and operated (traded on NYSE) whereas China Nuclear Engineering and Construction (CNEC) is one of many large State-run companies still operating in China. Hopefully it will not turn into another scandal-laden Three Gorges Dam.
Via Slashdot.
{ 7 comments }
I noted in another article that this was a multi-megawatt project. Even so, my understanding is that this design is considerably cheaper that the standard water-cooled reactor with containment dome. Another touted feature is that the design is scalable from small to large applications.
My hope is that South Africa’s and China’s success would spur a pebble-bed race among other countries, especially the US.
This reminds me of the earlier discussion on this blog about oil dependency, and how alternatives will be invented as the need for them increases.
I wonder if this design, or at least its foundational theories, can be applied to ships engines for large cargo carriers? Hmmmm….
Regarding PBR’s in ships:
“Romawa B.V., the Netherlands, promotes a design called “Nereus”. This is an 8 MW (very small) reactor designed to fit in a container, and provide either a ship’s power plant, isolated utilities, backup or peaking power. The reactor heats helium, which in turn heats air that drives a conventional gas turbine. Romawa has a business agreement with Adams Atomic Engines (http://www.atomicengines.com/) in the U.S.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor)
I highly recommend Wired’s article on this topic. It gives a good overview of the developmental process of the pebble-bed reactor, its modularity, and prospects for success.
Although I work in the nuclear sciences and can thus be considered biased, this technology seems quite promising to me.
It sucks. Its really no better than light water reactors, and worse on security because the design prohibits a containment dome. You have costs of fuel fabrication all the same, waste disposal.
I have no idea how this design got so much press but everyone has read some popular science article that gushes about how great PBMR’s are, when they’re really no different than any other gas cooled reactor except that the fuel is in little balls instead of rods.
A far better technolgy is the molten salt reactor. Best neutron economy, passive safety, online waste processing, 1/100th the waste stream, and you can fuel it on thorium or spent fuel from light water reactors.
http://lpsc.in2p3.fr/gpr/english/MSR/MSR.html
http://anes.fiu.edu/Pro/s9For.pdf
http://www.iri.tudelft.nl/~klooster/msr/msr.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/
Hey, thanks for the info Dezakin… I’m not a nuclear scientist and indeed, numerous “popular science” articles have influenced my reasoning.
Sorry, I was being a bit reactionary. PBMR’s are better than light water reactors on average, they’re just not revolutionary; Molten salt reactors are revolutionary though, and I’m a bit depressed to see the MSR sidelined by distinctly inferior technology.
For instance, they lost the mindshare to liquid metal fast breeder reactors because of funding issues in research related to the fact that molten salt reactors were distinctly inferior at producing large quantities of weapons grade plutonium.
Comments on this entry are closed.