Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced $80 million for the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) funding to demonstrate the Westinghouse eVinci micro nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan. SRC will apply the research and knowledge gained from the licensing and deployment of an initial microreactor to support the Saskatchewan nuclear industry to better understand this type of technology and the potential for future microreactor projects in the province.
Saskatchewan’s nearly $1 billion-a-year uranium industry made Canada the world’s second-largest producer in 2022, according to World Nuclear Association (WNA) data. This puts the province ahead of previous frontrunners including Namibia and Australia. In 2021, Canada ranked third, while Kazakhstan has consistently placed first. In 2021, the Saskatchewan uranium industry employed 1,842 people. In 2023, the industry is currently expected to produce 15 million kilograms of yellowcake, almost double last year’s number. Northern Saskatchewan has the largest high-grade uranium deposits in the world. This region is the source of almost a quarter of the world’s uranium supply for electrical generation. The Saskatchewan uranium deposits are very high grade. Cigar Lake is the world’s highest grade uranium mine, with grades that are 100 times the world average.
NOTE: I was born and few up in Saskatchewan. It was always obvious to me that Saskatchewan needed to support nuclear energy production but for decades anti-business provincial leadership was against it. It would be like Saudi Arabia being against the use of oil. I wrote letters decades ago to encourage the obvious choice for Saskatchewan to develop nuclear power. The Canadian government made and sold Candu nuclear reactors. All Saskatchewan had to do was say yes and they would have gotten 5,000 PHD and engineering jobs by getting a federal nuclear research facility placed into Saskatchewan. This would and will make a huge difference for a small province with just over 1 million people and an economy highly dependent on agriculture.
The eVinciTM microreactor will be built by Westinghouse Electric Company. Subject to licensing and regulatory requirements, it is expected to be operational by 2029. The location of the reactor will be determined as the project progresses through the regulatory processes. The surrounding infrastructure is less than two thirds the size of a hockey rink. The eVinciTM is classified as a microreactor capable of producing five megawatts of electricity, over 13 megawatts of high temperature heat, or operating in combined heat and power mode.
SRC is Canada’s second largest research and technology organization. With nearly 350 employees, $232 million in annual revenue and 76 years of experience, SRC provides services and products to its 1,600 clients in 22 countries around the world. SRC safely operated a SLOWPOKE-2 nuclear research reactor for 38 years before decommissioning it in 2021.
If built by the anticipated timeframe, the eVinci demonstration would become Saskatchewan’s first advanced nuclear reactor. SaskPower, a utility owned by the provincial government, has selected GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s (GEH’s) 300-MW BWRX-300 for its first two potential nuclear units. While SaskPower intends to decide to build the new nuclear units in 2029, it suggests construction of the first small modular reactor (SMR) could begin as early as 2030, with a targeted in-service date of 2034. In August, Canada’s federal government committed CA$74 million to support SaskPower’s potential deployment through two federal mechanisms.
Last year, the Canadian federal government awarded Westinghouse a CA$27.2 million grant from its Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) to support further development of the eVinci microreactor. The “investment” is aimed at helping to fight climate change and “build on Canada’s global leadership in SMRs,” said François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.
Factory Mass Produced Heat Pipes Are Key to Factory Mass Produced eVinci Reactors
Westinghouse’s recent success in manufacturing a 12-foot heat pipe at its Waltz Mill, Pennsylvania, facility (as part of a $9 million federal cost-share project under the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program).
The Westinghouse eVinci micro reactor is an innovative design with many attractive safety features based on design simplicity. The unique core design is built around a solid steel monolith with channels for both heat pipes and fuel pellets. Each fuel pin in the core is adjacent to three heat pipes for efficiency and redundancy. Overall, there is a 1-to-2, heat-pipe-to-fuel ratio throughout the core. The large number of in-core heat pipes is intended to increase system reliability and safety. Decay heat also can be removed by the heat pipes with the decay heat exchanger.
The use of heat pipes in nuclear reactors is new and perhaps not as familiar to the commercial nuclear industry, but liquid metal heat pipe technology is mature and robust with a large experimental test database to support implementation of the technology into commercial nuclear applications. The marriage of these three components makes the eVinci micro reactor concept unique and simple.
Use of the heat pipes in a reactor system addresses some of the most difficult reactor safety issues and reliability concerns present in current Generation II and III (and to some extent, Generation IV concepts) commercial nuclear reactors – in particular, loss of primary coolant. Heat pipes operate in a passive mode at relatively low pressures, less than an atmosphere. Each individual heat pipe contains only a small amount of working fluid, which is fully encapsulated in a sealed steel pipe. There is no primary cooling loop, hence no mechanical pumps, valves, or large-diameter primary loop piping typically found in all commercial reactors today. Heat pipes simply transport heat from the in-core evaporator section to the ex-core condenser in continuous isothermal vapor/liquid internal flow. Heat pipes offer a new and unique means to remove heat from a reactor core.
The key benefits of eVinci are attributed to its technology:
Solid Core:
* Encapsulates fuel to significantly reduce proliferation risk
* Enables inherently safe core due to strong negative temperature feedback
Heat Pipes:
* Eliminates the need for reactor coolant pump and all associated auxiliary systems to enable compact packaging and simple design
* Can inherently adjust heat load, thus allowing easier autonomous load following
* Can operate at higher temperatures to enable higher efficient power conversion system and high-grade process heat
Both heat pipes and the solid core together make the eVinci micro reactor a solid state reactor with minimal moving parts, which is key to the reliability and maintenance-free design of a long-life decentralized energy generator.
Dates have slipped from earlier plans but IF this is built and mass produced then it will be a gamechanger for safer and abundant nuclear energy.
The new eVinci “accelerator hub” under construction in the borough of Etna in Pennsylvania will be home to engineering and licensing operations, testing, prototype trials, business development, and sales. It also includes manufacturing space. Courtesy: Westinghouse
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Appears to be a variation on molten salt reactor. Power conversion process is quite sketchy. The claimed efficiency seems very optimistic.
While the molten salt pressure is low, the power conversion process will be much higher. If some form of steam process, several thousand pounds per square inch. If some form of Brayton cycle, several hundred psi. Tube leaks could be a problem for the reactor
It is a solid, fast-neutron core with sodium heat pipes penetrating the core [which beam neutrons out along the axis of the reactor]. There is no salt, solar, or otherwise. It is something the DOE/DOD wants. It is a very expensive alternative to a diesel generator and makes power for about the same cost (over $300/MWh estimated). Imagine, a HALEU reactor that costs as much as a F-16 and makes 5MWe, except it is unproven and exists on paper. How could such a thing make a dent in global carbon emissions? They talk about using it at bases, artic installations, etc. whatever. It’s just a graphic.
Sorry for all the typos and spelling errors and sentence fragments. I’ll try to proofread better.
The heat pipes require some form of fluid to function. That heat is transferred into another fluid that is used with the power conversion system. The literature also discusses some form of thermonic generation, but that is a really inefficient process.
The reactor applications are a very small niche that have no measurable impact on global emissions. The economics look pretty poor, considering the capital cost of the power plant and small output. Probably just better off with a diesel generator, and tapping into the electrical grid if it is available.
A reactor of this size could be paired with the new GeneralElectric CO2 closed loop micro turbine and a generator for a very small modular generator station that would fit in a shipping container.
Saskatchewan has had the world’s largest uranium deposits and has footdragged on their development.
The world is going Electric and needs this energy desperately.
With Russia becoming supplier non gratia, they will have large shoes to fill. Saskatchewan should have already been the Canadian Energy Giant over Alberta.
Nuclear power plants could have produced waste heat to extract tar sand oils with out burning three barrels to get 4 out.
When CO2 turbines graduate from experimental prototype to COTS, that cycle and fluid will be used for countless applications, for sure…
There is a lot of uranium all over the place, including Saskatchewan. So, the heavy presence of Kazakhstan in the uranium market is very definitely not the same as that big bad supplier non grata, right? Hmmmm. RF tends not to invade good satellite republics. The west sure saves a lot of face buying KAZAKH uranium. The entire global uranium market is very small; depending on the price of yellowcake (it is up recently), the entire uranium commodity trades for maybe $2B/year. Check me please.
We hear about using SMR nuclear heat to extract tar sands oil every couple of years… Need steam for that, not CO2. BWXT mPower thought they were going to do that too…. the volatility of oil price and hidden difficulties tying safety related nuclear systems to industrial processes have kept that dream from reality. Do you really want your reactor power tied to an industrial load (most reactors are slaved to load).
The world going electric will power desperately, for sure… although that power is not going to come in materially wasteful 5MWe increments from micro reactors rendered to look like shiny MRI machines.
If supercritical CO2 closed loop cycle is used, then the .pressure is a couple of thousand psi. If conventional closed loop Brayton cycle is used, then unclear why one would use CO2 – no particular advantage. Closed loop helium Brayton cycle would work as turbine pressure ratio is around 2.5 which means system pressure of something less than 1000 psi would work. However, in all cases, heat pipe tube failure subject the reactor to high pressures. Heat exchanger tube leaks (I.e. heat pipes) are inevitable and common in power plants.
The pressure and temperature of the power conversion system is the driver for the efficiency of the plant, not the temperature of the reactor. In all cases, the piping/components must be able to tolerate the outgoing reactor temperature. That fact seems to be overlooked by a lot of reactor designers touting high reactor temperatures.
If you’d like to know how the DOE is steering all things nuclear — on the ground and in space, then watch these two talks.
They were given at a science society gathering, in front of a small audience, with only a couple hundred views on YT.
Inconsequential circumstances that foster unintended honesty.
Skip forward to the speakers.
The first talk is by Kathryn Huff of the DOE, who lays out in detail what the current admin wants to happen with nuclear energy.
She is fully candid about her biases on the tech, and which companies she sees as leaders, (and potential future employers?)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t228NgMhbao
The second video is by Tabitha Dodson on the current admins path to nuclear thermal space propulsion.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bRo7jPka_Vc&pp=ygUXTnVjbGVhciByb2NrZXQgcHN3IDI0ODA%3D
Biases aside, it seems a main guidance is to build a common fuel tech that can be used for energy and space propulsion.
That’s a good thing. I’ve not felt this encouraged about NTR since the 70s.
Down side is Ms.Huff apparently has some favorites in the terrestrial realm, as well as a narcissistic and digressive speaking style, but that’s just my subjective opinion.
Assuming Ms. Huff’s pronouns are she/her, she almost passes for cute. Picking winners and handing out wads is the DOE charter. There is a reasonable chance the direction of the office of nuclear energy could change starting in January 2025… just a chance.
It wish I could figure out the kickback structure that would allow the Saskatchewan investment in Westinghouse (owned by Brookfield Business Partners – HQ Toronto) to circulate back into Canada. Who really cares though? And I’m not a detective.
Merry Christmas.
Great way to make $350/MWh electricity where nobody lives, but it’s the DOE’s money, so… have at it. I’ve heard they’ve got more than 70 people billing to it part-time.
I will never understand why they insist on a ‘monolithic block of steel’ with pellets pressed in it (AKA stress concentrations) rather than bundling SS clad tubes and heat pipes together with steel bands, but again, DOE’s money, so have at it. The young team at Westinghouse also thinks that lead cooled reactors will have game changing economics, so cuckoo, or at least detached from reality.
Saskatchewan sounds nice, like freedom. Probably pretty hard to get a mate out there though.
How DOE cost share works, dollar for dollar match:
WEC is a perennially insolvent ‘company’ that’s been passed around to the British, Japanese, now Canadians… owners who don’t dare or are not allowed to mess with the inner workings that keep maybe 100 reactors fueled… that steady business is important enough (a national interest) to keep Westinghouse alive like a zombie like GM, but without the unions.
Like all zombie hoards, WEC keeps a high staffing level… WEC doesn’t want to let any PhDs go, and there really are limited places for them to go out in the North American economy, so as long as they are willing to accept rather low pay, WEC keep them. WEC also bleeds anyone who will take a job in UAE, or the North American fleet. I worked there in 2005-2007 – fresh MS in NE, $62k/yr.
So if you have 70 people that you’re going to have to find a way to pay because you don’t want to let them go… In comes the DOE with a $7M cost match for specifically microreactor R&D. Now, if you spend $7M on R&D, and get matched $7M by the DOE…. well I’m no accountant, but that sounds like you spent nothing on something you know isn’t gonna pan out, but at least you get to keep the IP and become authoritative on the topic… lol
I have never heard of a layoff at Westinghouse as long as I’ve been in the business.
Could you kindly explain why the hope placed in lead-cooled reactors is cuckoo? I’ve followed your comments on nuclear energy throughout NBF articles and you seem very knowledgeable. I’d much appreciate if you elaborated here.
Thanks & Kind regards
We had a dog-and-pony symposium at work where vendors came and showed us their drones and condenser cleaning methods, labor saving devices, etc… I cornered the young rep from Westinghouse for about 25 minutes and discussed eVinci and losing the goldenboy (diversity hire) Yasir Arafat (U Pitt Chem-E) to INL where he is ‘leading’ the MARVEL effort with his “exactly the right mix of technical acumen and drive to make it a success” per INL press release dated March 24, 2022. The young WEC rep said he was part of a WEC-internal multi-week Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table Process (PIRT) that recently looked at all the Gen4 concepts from MSR to Lead Fast Breeder Reactor and the conclusion of the PIRT was that the LFBR would be the best choice, with focus on economical operation (sic low cost). I shared some of my background, thanked him for his time, took his card and went back to work. I left the “reactor development” realm in 2014 and vowed to never go back, since I figure it is better to be a cog in a machine that makes money operating, procuring, managing fuel real BWR/PWR than to spend a whole career like some others, endlessly pitching concepts to a captured audience at the DOE, only to be terminated like the Versatile Test Reactor was in 2022 when Congress failed to fund it. Now the hope is Natrium, or KP-FHR or XE-100. I must admit that it is my educated/experienced opinion that lead cooled fast breeder reactors will not be easier or cheaper to operate than our existing PWR/BWR fleet, thus I scoffed (internally) at the suggestion by the young WEC rep that LFBR were “the future” to use a cliche. That said, I’m happy for him that he has such a fun job…. maybe he’ll never get tired of building nothing.
It is my sincere belief that all this SMR, Microreactor, Gen4, Advanced, ATF messaging is a distraction to make it look like we, the Western democracies, are advancing nuclear frontiers in good faith… when actually, we are just spending a bit of money on novel concepts that aren’t particularly practical and keep a few hundred post-docs employed, instead of breaking ground on 10x 1GWe LWR each year. Building out to 80% nuclear base load with the current technology would achieve much of the current administration’s carbon emission reduction goals over 20 years. We have many approved designs on the shelf. Most other aspects of our society/economy (education/healthcare) are managed in a top-down spending driven manner, so I argue there is no reason for US government to finance the builds, whatever they cost, and subsequently sell turn-key plants at fixed-price to companies like Constellation or PG&E to run for a profit. My perfectly middle-class household received $8000 in covid stimulus while I was never out of work – $trillions were handed out. You can’t tell me US government cant build 10 nuke plants for $175B and sell them to utilities for $100B. They simply don’t want to.
TLDR: the SMR/MICRO/GEN4 is a distraction, much like reinforcing ideas about racial division, conservative vs. liberal. Sow, confusion, continue with status quo.
The lead based coolant turns into a solid if it cools off. Creates a maintenance nightmare that generally requires cutting out the “frozen” pipe sections. Really bad idea for a machine that is expected to reliably operate. As laboratory reactor experiment, I suppose is interesting toy for the scientists.