Technical Brief Video - Parkview Health (Fort Wayne)

30,000 Patients each year… 6MW of power to backup… Joint Commission compliance… expandability for future growth.

Southern has a big nuclear project in the works, and it has worked hard to get it done early -- which increasingly looks like a brilliant move. //

as much as we can as fast as we can is an enormous risk mitigator. You've heard us use the expression before, Fail Fast. We'd like to get our hands on major equipment and major systems and test them as early as we can, two big benefits. When we do that, we let in the opportunity for these systems when problems invariably occur that they don't impact our critical path, one; two, that we can minimize cost as a result of those things; and three, that we gain lessons learned that we can apply to other systems throughout the plant.

Essentially, pushing the envelope like this by working toward a deadline that's six months ahead of what regulators expect gives Southern breathing room. It can deal with some headwinds and still get the project completed as regulators expect. And if it gets done sooner, well, everyone ends up happy: The nuclear plants will be running, and Southern will trim the overall cost of the project.

In its latest move toward potentially embracing next-gen nuclear energy technology, the Tennessee Valley Authority has signed a memorandum of understanding with the state’s largest university to study it together. The University of Tennessee and TVA signed the MOU to evaluate development of advanced nuclear technologies such as small modular reactors. The project, if developed,...

Energy for Prosperity began in Myanmar and is now expanding globally. From solar home systems to mini grids, we’re advancing reliable solutions that are safer, cheaper and cleaner than typical alternatives such as wood, kerosene, candles and diesel. With increasing access to energy, the communities we serve are launching and expanding new businesses, powering farm equipment and drinking water systems, reading to their children at night and more.

Expanding access to energy can contribute to achieving each of the Sustainable Development Goals, and is a goal in itself, making it a crucial part of the global development agenda.

Swapping out spent uranium rods requires hundreds of technicians—challenging right now. //

This is shameful all the way around. When this is over, those who fed this hysteria, both the academics who created bullsh**t models that drove elected officials to a state of panic and the politicians who decided is was easier to go along with the herd than obey commonsense must be called out, held to account, and shamed forever from the public life of the nation.

They could supply energy to far-flung bases, power laser weapons and charge electric vehicles //

War zones are dangerous places. Where better, then, for a nuclear reactor? On March 9th America’s government awarded a trio of firms $39.7m to design “microreactors” that can supply a few megawatts of power to remote military bases, and be moved quickly by road, rail, sea and air.

The idea of small reactors is as old as nuclear power itself. In July 1951, five months before a reactor in Idaho became the first in the world to produce usable electricity through fission, America began building uss Nautilus, a nuclear-powered submarine. In the 1960s and 1970s small reactors powered bases in Alaska and Greenland, a radar facility in Wyoming, a research station in Antarctica and—from a cargo ship—the Panama Canal Zone. America still uses nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft-carriers. But land-based mini-reactors proved unreliable and expensive and have fallen out of favour

Moderate-temperature thermal sources often radiate waste heat as a by-product of mechanical work, chemical or nuclear reactions, or information processing. In a new report in Science, Paul S. Davids and a research team at the Sandia National Laboratory in the U.S., demonstrated the conversion of thermal radiation into electrical power. For this, they used a bipolar grating-coupled complimentary metal-oxide-silicon (CMOS) tunnel diode. Using a two-step photon-assisted tunneling charge pumping mechanism, the team separated the charge carriers in pn junction wells to develop a large, open-circuit voltage across a load. The scientists experimentally showed electrical power generation from a broadband blackbody thermal source with converted power densities of 27 to 61 µW/cm2 for thermal sources between 250 degrees C to 400 degrees C. The demonstrated scalable and efficient conversion of radiated waste heat into electrical power can be used to reduce energy consumption—in order to power electronics and sensors.

Small-scale nuclear reactors are starting to be developed around the world. Proponents say they are a safer and cheaper form of nuclear power. But will they keep up with renewables? //

In 2000, the Department of Energy funded a project at Oregon State University, among others, to study a multi-application small light water reactor. In 2007, the university granted Nuscale exclusive rights to the design of SMR, as well as the continued use of their test facility. In 2011, Fluor Corporation, a multinational engineering firm, invested in the company. In 2018, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the first phase of review for the design. Nuscale now has more than 529 patents granted or pending and close to 400 employees.

Many of the SMR designs in development simply shrink the systems of large-scale nuclear plants, using less fuel. Nuscale’s reactor will be just 76 feet (23 metres) high. More than 125 Nuscale reactors could be put in a traditional reactor’s containment building, though the company plans to deploy them in groups of 12. //

Nuscale’s system is also integral, meaning the fuel, steam and generator will all be in one vessel. “This reduces the risk of accidents because there are less pipes to break,” says Reyes. The technology also uses the core’s heat to drive the coolant flow, eliminating the need for coolant pumps and moving parts that could fail. Each reactor will be self-contained, with multiple reactors sharing a cooling pool.

If a traditional nuclear reactor’s cooling water is lost, the fission reaction will shut down, but the raised temperatures may lead to a core meltdown. Even after a reactor is turned off, heat from the radioactive decay of fission can melt cores, as occurred in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, when a tsunami damaged the generators pumping water through the shut-down reactors. That’s why Nuscale engineers have also built relief valves on the reactor vessel, which open when power is lost and release steam into the vessel, where it condenses, recirculates and provides cooling. Without the need for pumps, Reyes says, “Even under worst case scenarios, where we lose all off-site power, the reactor will safely automatically shut down and remain cool for an unlimited time.” He adds, “this is the first time that’s been done” for commercial nuclear power. //

Nuclear proponents have argued net-zero emissions will be impossible to achieve fast enough without relying on nuclear energy. But there’s no consensus in energy policy that this is true: Renewable energy has expanded faster than expected, and as energy storage technology continues to improve, its potential is only growing.

“What really needs to happen at this point is for there to be competition among low-carbon energy sources, to see who can deliver the most benefit for carbon reduction at the least cost,” says Peter Bradford, a former member of the NRC. “I don’t have a problem with the government underwriting research in a different energy technology, as long as the research is proportional to the promise it has shown.”

As with other nuclear fusion technology, the difficulty is in building a machine that can reliably initiate the reaction and harness the energy it produces.

Though much attention has been focused on the exciting realm of nuclear reactor technology innovation, major efforts to improve nuclear fuels—and boost power generation safety and economics—are underway

OPEN100 will accelerate

deployment of the world's most vital

solution to climate change: Nuclear Energy.

Today, we offer reference plant schematics and a platform to compile ongoing design work. With the help of our partners and the National Labs, these drawings will evolve into a fully detailed, ready-to-build blueprint.

There’s widespread debate over whether nuclear power should be a player in the path toward addressing climate change. Industry analysts say nuclear is key //

Bret Kugelmass, managing director of the Washington, D.C.-based Energy Impact Center (EIC), and a robotics engineer at Stanford University, on Feb. 25 introduced his group’s plan for nuclear power, with an eye toward solving what he told POWER on Tuesday is the major issue impacting the sector: “economics, economics, economics.” Kugelmass founded the EIC as a group that seeks what it calls “accelerated pathways” to decarbonize the global economy by 2040, and he thinks nuclear power is a solution.

The Energy Impact Center’s OPEN100 plan, what the EIC calls “the world’s first open-source blueprint for nuclear power plant deployment,” is about showing that nuclear can provide both clean, and cost-effective, energy, with more streamlined construction. Kugelmass said the global trend of building larger and more complex reactors has contributed to the “uncompetitive” nature of nuclear power.

THE
ENERGY
IMPACT
CENTER
LET'S TALK ABOUT
CLIMATE CHANGE

Without nuclear, even if we achieved net-zero new emissions globally, we’d continue to add extra heat at the same rate we are adding it today.

By Bret Kugelmass //

At the Energy Impact Center (EIC) we are committed to finding accelerated pathways to decarbonize the global economy by 2040. It is not enough to clean the electricity sector; future energy production must produce industrial heat, clean fuels, and power the direct air capture of legacy emissions as well.
Nuclear energy is the only technology capable of generating the quantities of low-carbon electricity needed to meet the world’s growing energy demand while accounting for its own lifecycle carbon emissions.
But we need far more nuclear power than currently exists to achieve our climate goals — one hundred times more. Achieving this vision will require the construction of nuclear plants that are more affordable and competitive. Despite being the single largest source of low-carbon electricity generation in the United States, over time the trend toward building ever larger and more complex reactors has made nuclear energy uncompetitive.

The biggest barrier to the widespread use of nuclear is the cost of building reactors, which most experts would agree is a major problem for the industry. //

Nuclear power’s role in combating climate change is a contentious topic, but a Silicon Valley entrepreneur thinks he can sway the debate by releasing open-source designs for a small-scale reactor that could be built in two years for just $300 million.

The argument for making nuclear power part of our response to climate change is compelling: the fuel is abundant, it releases no greenhouse gas emissions during operations, and it’s capable of producing huge amounts of energy.

But safety concerns, cost, and the question of what to do with the radioactive waste produced mean it’s failed to capture the zeitgeist.

Bret Kugelmass wants to change that. After selling his drone company Airphrame in 2017 he decided to take on climate change, founding a non-profit research organization called the Energy Impact Center (EIC). And pretty quickly, he came to the conclusion that nuclear power is the way forward.

To advance his vision, last week EIC launched the OPEN100 project, which Kugelmass says will provide open-source blueprints for the design, construction, and financing of a 100-megawatt nuclear reactor. He claims the reactor can be built for $300 million in less than two years, significantly decreasing the per-kilowatt cost of nuclear power.

Anyone want to build their own power plant? //

A nonprofit startup is offering an open-source nuclear plant plan.
One "modular reactor" plant was approved in 2018, but others still face regulatory hurdles.
The Energy Impact Center founder believes nuclear is the near future in cleaner energy.

Most provisions of the American Energy Innovation Act wouldn't spur American energy innovation. Nor is the bill innovative in promoting sound public policy. //

if you’re in Washington, “innovation” is trotting out the same, stale approaches to policy that have done less to empower innovators and families and more to empower special interests.

The latest case in point is a 555-page energy bill introduced in the Senate. The majority of provisions in the so-called American Energy Innovation Act are not something that would spur American energy innovation, nor is it innovative thinking when it comes to promoting sound public policy. //

These interventionist policies put Congress and Department of Energy bureaucrats—rather than investors and customers—in the position of narrowing the field of competition between the many energy technologies being perfected in the U.S. right now to win customers. That cannot help but narrow the scope of innovation. //

The market for energy, whether it’s to light and heat our homes or to get to work every day, is a massive one. In the U.S. alone, consumers spent over $1 trillion on energy, and global investment reached $1.8 trillion.

Any of these technologies that can capture a sliver of that market won’t need the taxpayers’ help. Rather than propping up a few projects, if Congress wants American energy companies to innovate more, it should break down government-imposed barriers that prevent them from doing so //

Congress needs to put forth an energy bill, but one that does exactly the opposite of the American Energy Innovation Act.

Congress should undo the policies that have entangled the federal government in the business of energy and the decisions of families to make choices for themselves about what services and technologies best meet their needs.

The American Energy Innovation Act declares that taxpayers are responsible for developing an “integrated investment strategy” for nuclear technologies. //

rather than improving private-sector access to federal assets, reducing regulatory barriers, and addressing the political risks that nuclear energy faces, it quite literally proposes that the government do the work of private companies for them—to improve their product, acquire financing, and find potential customers.

Such a program is far outside the responsibility of the federal government—and of the federal taxpayer. But it could also erect new barriers for companies that don’t go through the Energy Department program.

In the end, it makes the nuclear industry politically dependent, and consequently politically vulnerable. But what’s worse is, we’ve tried this all before, and the track record isn’t good. //

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 set out on the same grand mission. In that not-so-distant past, Congress authorized, among many other favors for the nuclear industry, $1.25 billion for a public-private partnership, the Next Generation Nuclear Power Plant. Congress spent $528 million through 2010, only to abandon it in 2011 during the pre-licensing process. //

This is industrial policy, plain and simple.

On the whole, Congress did good work with the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act in 2018 and the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act in 2019.

What the American Energy Innovation Act proposes is a bridge too far. //

If Congress were really interested in helping the nuclear industry—both existing nuclear power plants and the advanced reactors of tomorrow—it should address the regulatory burdens and uncertainties created by government itself