While nuclear energy is currently too expensive to replace fossil fuels, a new generation nuclear power plant would help ensure Estonia's energy security and bring down electricity prices at the same time, according to Simon Newton of Moltex Energy, which has visited Estonia.
"If the use of oil shale is to be reduced by 2030, we need to think about what to replace it with. If electricity comes from another country, you can't always control the price," Newton said.
He believes there is a case for developing wind energy in Estonia. However, renewable energy sources alone cannot be relied upon. This is not only a problem here, but also elsewhere in the world. Gas turbines are the only way to balance energy demand on an ongoing and as-needed basis on a larger scale. These emit greenhouse gases.
"The plant would be 20 times smaller than today's typical nuclear plants, but with exactly the same capacity. I think we can produce energy more cheaply than coal or gas-fired power stations."
Newton acknowledged that nuclear energy is currently too expensive to compete with fossil fuels. Although nuclear plants are not directly dangerous, they use inherently dangerous processes to generate energy. Thus, following the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear disasters, various safety measures account for a significant proportion of their cost. These are paid for by taxpayers. For example, the price of electricity generated by a new nuclear power plant in the UK would be twice as high if the difference were not covered by public subsidies.
This is where the molten salt reactors being developed by Moltex Energy could come into play, according to Newton, which use fast neutrons to produce energy, using nuclear waste already generated as fuel. Among other things, this will reduce their half-life from 100 000 years to 300 years.
The whole reaction takes place at atmospheric pressure. In other words, nothing can fly up into the air. Nor can the reactor overheat in the absence of cooling. As the temperature rises, the rate of nuclear reaction starts to fall. This would make it easier and cheaper to build.
The current plan is to build the first 300 MW molten salt reactor in New Brunswick, Canada, by 2028.
An old idea in a new sauce
Newton pointed out that using molten salt as fuel and coolant in reactors is not a new idea. The first experimental reactor was already built in the 1960s in the USA. Although it worked efficiently for several years, further development was abandoned at the time. Newton saw national priorities as the main reason. Sulphur-salt reactors did not produce plutonium suitable for nuclear weapons as a by-product.
Engineering challenges also played their part. Pumping radioactive salts damages most materials. The reactor's lifetime would be significantly shorter than 60 years, which is the average lifetime of modern plants. Moltex Energy's solution was straightforward. One salt is kept stable in the fuel cell and the other salt is used to cool the system. "It eliminated the main problem with a stroke of a brush. It seems like a simple idea, but usually all such ideas seem simple later on," said Newton.
In addition, the system allows energy to be stored and sent to the grid as needed. For example, when the weather turns cloudy or the wind dies down. "The result is a grid that is entirely made up of carbon-free sources. This is going to be quite important in the future," Newton predicted.
He admitted that a few experimental reactors would not save the world. Thousands of fossil-fuel power plants are being built or will be built in the near future. So the company plans to start selling reactor design licences to other companies or consortia.
One of them could also be located in Estonia. "It's quite windy here, as you can see, but there's not a lot of sunshine, and leaving oil shale aside, natural resources are limited. So it seems a good idea to build a safe and clean nuclear power plant," said Newton.
First published in ERR portal Novaator 15.03.2019, author Jaan-Juhan Oidermaa