scholarly journals Evaluation of Suitability of Selected Set of Department of Defense Military Bases and Department of Energy Facilities for Siting a Small Modular Reactor

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willis P Poore, III ◽  
Randy Belles ◽  
Gary T Mays ◽  
Olufemi A Omitaomu
Keyword(s):  
Department Of Defense ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
Military Bases ◽  
Small Modular Reactor

The U.S. Federal Market as an Early Adopter of SMRs

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Barattino ◽  
Scott Foster ◽  
James Spaulding
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Department Of Defense ◽  
Prime Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Military Bases ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Early Adopter ◽  
Energy Usage ◽  
The U.S

The Federal Government accounts for about 2% of energy usage within the United States, with electricity accounting for approximately one-fifth of this usage. The Department of Defense (DOD) is the largest energy consumer across all Federal Agencies, accounting for nearly half of total use and has implemented programs to assure sustainable energy supplies for meeting mission critical operations. As prototype systems of Small Modular Reactors mature during the remainder of this decade, there is growing interest at senior levels of government to use the secure confines of military bases for electricity generated with SMRs to service power requirements of the DOD base and possibly the surrounding communities. This paper explores the potential for using DOD as an early adopter of SMRs from perspectives of the size of the market and adaptability of the current procurement process for private ownership of SMRs on military bases. Such an approach is shown to be consistent with DOD Sustainability objectives, as well as ensuring a continuation of the projected erosion of diversity mix for prime power generation within the U.S. A review of contract types for energy services are evaluated from the perspective of including SMRs. Required modifications for SMRs to be a part of this energy mix for Federal Agencies are presented.

Quantitative and Qualitative Comparison of Light Water and Advanced Small Modular Reactors

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatih Aydogan ◽  
Geoffrey Black ◽  
Meredith A. Taylor Black ◽  
David Solan
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
Passive Safety ◽  
Qualitative Comparison ◽  
Light Water ◽  
Small Modular Reactor ◽  
Safety Features ◽  
Physical Challenges ◽  
Integral Reactor

In recent years, several small modular reactor (SMR) designs have been developed. These nuclear power plants (NPPs) not only offer a small power size (less than 300 MWe), a reduced spatial footprint, and modularized compact designs fabricated in factories and transported to the intended sites, but also passive safety features. Some light water (LW)-SMRs have already been granted by Department of Energy: NuScale and mPower. New LW-SMRs are mainly inspired by the early LW-SMRs (such as process-inherent ultimate safety (PIUS), international reactor innovative and secure (IRIS), and safe integral reactor (SIR)). LW-SMRs employ significantly fewer components to decrease costs and increase simplicity of design. However, new physical challenges have appeared with these changes. At the same time, advanced SMR (ADV-SMR) designs (such as PBMR, MHR Antares, Prism, 4S, and Hyperion) are being developed that have improved passive safety and other features. This paper quantitatively and qualitatively compares most of the LW- and ADV-SMRs with respect to reactors, nuclear fuel, containment, reactor coolant systems, refueling, and emergency coolant systems. Economic and financing evaluations are also included in the paper. The detailed comparisons in this paper elucidate that one reactor is not superior to the others analyzed in this study, as each reactor is designed to meet different needs.

scholarly journals New Developments in Biotechnology U.S. Investment in Biotechnology

1989 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-151
Keyword(s):  
Department Of Defense ◽  
National Science Foundation ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Department Of Agriculture ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Federal Support ◽  
Support Of Research

Twelve federal agencies and one cross agency program spent roughly $2.7 billion in fiscal year 1987 in support of research and development in biotechnology, according to a report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) that was released today. Federal support of biotechnology has increased every year since 1984.The National Institutes of Health contributed by far the largest share of federal support, approximately $2.3 billion, or 84%; the Department of Defense, $119 million, the National Science Foundation, $93.8 million; the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $84 million, and the Department of Energy $61.4 million, OTA reports.

scholarly journals Understanding Human Readiness Levels

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 1765-1769
Author(s):  
George Salazar ◽  
Judi E. See ◽  
Holly A. H. Handley ◽  
Richard Craft
Keyword(s):  
Department Of Defense ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Systems Integration ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
Technology Readiness ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Human Systems Integration ◽  
Level Scale

The Human Readiness Levels (HRL) scale is a simple nine-level scale developed as an adjunct to complement and supplement the existing Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) scale widely used across government agencies and industry. A multi-agency working group consisting of nearly 30 members representing the broader human systems integration (HSI) community throughout the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), other federal agencies, industry, and academia was established in August 2019. The working group’s charter was to mature the HRL scale and evaluate its utility, reliability, and validity for implementation in the systems acquisition lifecycle. Toward that end, the working group examined applicability of the HRL scale for a range of scenarios. This panel will discuss outcomes from the working group’s activities regarding HRL scale structure and usage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document