Shippingport Atomic Power Station as pictured in original press package; photo PR-19109

December 1957 would prove to be a month of firsts for the Shippingport Atomic Power Station; the plant had only recently been completed, and its new and novel reactor had only just achieved its first criticality on December 2nd.  These were pioneering days, though - after all, the plant project had only been authorized in July 1953, some four and a half years earlier, give or take.  Groundbreaking for the plant, after a selection process to decide who would partner with the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in the project happened on land provided by Duquesne Light Company in September 1954 with real construction work starting in March, 1955.  Thus, the plant had been constructed in about two and a half years.  In that spirit, operating the plant to see what it could do wouldn't wait for a battery of tests.

Washington Public Power Supply System Project 3, located at Satsop, Washington. Many utilities significantly overestimated future demand and over-ordered plants; this plant, designed by EBASCO, was one example. It was never completed.

At this fourth installment of the series on the "First Nuclear Era" build of nuclear plants in the United States, it might be worthwhile to pause a moment and reflect upon the findings so far:

Reactor vessel delivered to Calvert Cliffs; from brochure in Will Davis collection.

The year 1971 saw a continuation of the general trend of rising capital costs for all types of power plants, described by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in its publication for 1971 as having "risen rather rapidly."  According to the AEC, the aggregate major causes for the increases in costs specific to nuclear electric power plants were as follows, with author's analysis accompanying each:

This week has brought two news items - one positive and one negative - that echo a theme which runs down the history of nuclear energy like a spine.  The story goes that the original, longest-tried technology works while other, theoretically superior but technically vastly more difficult concepts continue to run into roadblocks; that story remains unchanged today, in the face of these new developments.

Last time, we looked at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) findings on the drivers of nuclear plant construction delay and cost overrun up through 1969.  We'll complete our analysis of the AEC findings on 1969 in this installment and move on to 1970.

Photo showing the TVA Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant under construction at the end of the 1960's. This was TVA's first nuclear plant, which attained some notoriety for having been ordered in what previously had been considered "coal country."

Another, modern-day report has come out which in part discusses the problems encountered in nuclear plant construction - and discusses some suggested fixes for these.  I welcome such research and reporting, but I have begun to wonder how many people realize that all of these studies have been done before and, more importantly, that the conclusions of those studies apply exactly to today's situation.

A sharp increase in reporting on KEPCO (the national Korean near-monopoly electric power provider) and KHNP (Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, the nuclear wing of KEPCO) the last two weeks or so by the Korean press has revealed a drastic reversal in the fortunes of this once-shining figure of Korean progress and success, and further implies ripples that perhaps could turn back an already flagging national economy.

In this final installment of the series on pool reactors we'll take a look at some remarkable images found in a 1956 brochure which shows some of the steps of the process in constructing the Ford Nuclear Reactor and attendant facilities at the University of Michigan.  Under the leadership of Babcock & Wilcox (today, BWXT) this 1000 KWt facility was constructed in about 19 months.  Reviewing the previous article in this series will be helpful in relating the construction photos.

Control Room, Naval Research Reactor, circa 1958.

In the previous installment, we observed that some of the earliest pool reactors incorporated their instrumentation right on the moving bridge which supported the reactor core.  As reactors increased in size and power and as exposure was considered, control was moved off the bridge onto the floor and then often into a control room (as seen above) in later designs.  These control rooms could either be at operating floor height with direct view of the reactor, or separate in another area of the facility.

Yesterday, I was reading an old (1970's) brochure published by ASEA-ATOM on district heating reactors.  While looking at that material I remembered that now, today, there is at least one effort afoot today to use a simple pool reactor for district heating - a pretty sharp idea, actually.  However, following that and spurred by a conversation on social media with Jessica Lovering, it occurred to me that the lowly pool type reactor, often the first kind of reactor many students have historically encountered in their trip through the nuclear universe, has not been given its due.  With that in mind, let's take a look at pool reactors through historic photos and materials.

July 21 will bring with it another anniversary of the 1959 launching (shown above) of the only US-built nuclear powered commercial ship, the NS SAVANNAH.  We've covered the ship fairly well here at ANS Nuclear Cafe over the years, so perhaps it's time for a story about the ship that's practically unknown.  Did you know SAVANNAH was pioneering in another way .. with respect to uprates?  That's right.  The nuclear plant on SAVANNAH was uprated!

Taishan Nuclear Power Plant, courtesy China General Nuclear Power Group

Long awaited news came today that at 17:59 hours local time, the Taishan-1 EPR nuclear plant connected to the grid for the first time.  This makes Taishan-1 not only the first EPR to load fuel anywhere (despite having been the third unit to start construction after units at Flamanville, France and Olkiluoto, Finland) but now also the first to operate its steam plant and close its output breakers.

I was intrigued this morning to read that StarCore Nuclear, a startup in Canada that's focusing on small, independent nuclear plants to provide a spectrum product (power, water, heat) had been - it is reported - in negotiation to provide an African nation with not less than twenty-three nuclear plants.  This audacious plan at first brush sounds incredible, but it's in the details that the wisdom is found and, in fact, perhaps the model for Small Modular Reactors (SMR's) to really break through into the world's broader market for power.

Illustration of NS SAVANNAH from Launch Ceremony Brochure in Will Davis' collection.

Observers were startled to learn in March that the Omnibus Spending Bill had included, in the budget for the U.S. Maritime Administration, the complete estimated amount required to perform the nuclear decommissioning of America's only commercial nuclear powered vessel, the NS SAVANNAH.  While there had been some funding toward beginning the process in a previous year's budget, the provision of the full amount - not specifically requested by MARAD - was a surprise.

Last week, I brought you the sordid tale of the Shoreham nuclear plant - a plant which was completed and started up, but which for a host of reasons was destined to never put power on the grid.  The plant sits today as a shell - disabled in a nuclear sense (as the key components were removed) but visible as a reminder of the terrible political, managerial, historic, activist and regulatory confluence that killed it.

The story of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island, New York was once well known in the industry and in utility circles; the plant, which took a very long time to construct and which faced considerable cost overrun, was heavily opposed by locals and in fact was never placed in operation.  The specific details of the plant's long but non-operational history are, though, considerably more interesting and, in many ways both more revealing and more depressing than such a brief description implies.

The Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station completed and in operational service. Press photo in Will Davis collection.

The initial startup of the Fort St. Vrain station finally happened on January 31, 1974, which was roughly one month after the station had received an operating license from the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).  As was the habit in those days with plants that were more experimental in nature than the light water plants, Public Service of Colorado had applied for and been granted by the AEC an operating license under Section 104(b) of the Atomic Energy Act.  This provision, ostensibly for medical or for research and developmental reactors, allowed a great deal more operational flexibility to the operators and additionally required far less discussion with and approval by the AEC itself on various matters concerning plant design, operation, administration and developmental testing.

We continue this look at original materials covering America's second commercial High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) with the examination of components of the NSSS, or Nuclear Steam Supply System.

One of the important design goals for the Fort St. Vrain reactor - really, the second-generation high temperature gas cooled reactor - was to create a core design that would be more compact than that actually used at Peach Bottom.  An innovative design was developed using stacked reactor-grade graphite modular blocks which incorporated fuel rods that contained coated fuel particles.

This week's Friday Matinee is a three-part presentation delivered originally on January 18, 2018, by the U.S. Department of Energy as a livestream.  The session was entitled "Energy Talks: Advanced Research, Nuclear Energy, Water Power."