Ideas and research to address renewability, affordability, and safety

by Matthew Formby

Renewability

1. Reactor designs that seem promising, based off idea to have multiple reactors housed together to yield 1GWe:
   • Westinghouse SMR 225MWe per module http://westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/Small-Modular-Reactor;
   • Babcock & Wilcox mPower 180MWe per module http://www.babcock...pdf
   • GE;Hitachi PRISM 311MWe per module, designed for 2 modules per block http://gehitachiprism.com/what-is-prism/
2. Use Gen4 Fast reactors to take advantage of already "spent" fuel
   • For example, the PRISM reactor can use all of the plutonium (or unenriched and barely enriched uranium) stored by the British that is currently unusable
3. If a Fast/Breeder reactor is not used, a reprocessing center could be a good idea
   • Would allow for independence from France, in that regard
   • Would allow for fuel that is currently unusable to be usable in a reactor we currently use
   • Decrease in amount of waste in depositories and from current reactor facilities
   • However, the US is currently against reprocessing unless for purely scientific purposes with President Obama's position on the subject

Affordability

1. Size of crew likely much less than estimated on initial PowerPoint
2. Multiple modular reactors per facility rather than one big reactor, if that's even possible
   • SMR/MMR's can be produced much easier, faster, and cheaper due to their size and construction techniques as compared to traditional reactors
   • I also believe a modular reactor would be easier and better suited to adapt to these conditions

Safety

1. Reactor should have passive safety precautions, best options for reactor types (broad) are GFRs or SFRs according to ASTRID a French undertaking to showcase Gen4 technology (assuming we are using Fast reactors, which I think would be best for long term)
   • Reactor should not primarily depend on mechanical systems for as many functions and operations as possible
2. Should not solely depend on US military for protection. I'd advise an alternative security force as well to really ensure safety from attack
3. Reactor vessel should be kept at least 100 meters deep and a few miles off shore
   • ;At that depth, risk of terrorist attacks by divers is essentially eliminated, leaving only other submersibles and depth charges as means for attacking units
   • Just about anything that could attempt an attack of this kind could/would be spotted by military, or private security force, before completion
   • Depth and distance is sufficient to minimize risk of natural disasters harming the vessel
   • Only natural disaster concern really would be earthquake. Solution: don't place unit near a fault line
4. Reactor vessel should have a protective net of some sort
   • Deters wildlife from being too close to vessel
   • Makes attacking the vessel by people much more difficult
   • Protective net likely not just a literal translation i.e. something that emits electromagnetic frequencies, most marine life has sensors to detect EMF and could be "persuaded" not to come close
5. Crew must be trained extensively to handle situations that may arise
   • Crew should also be interchangeable like on a military submarine
6. People should be dedicated to developing "War Games" for the crew to test safety readiness