If it could be done in 1962, why is it taking so long today?
Today, we are all talking about small modular nuclear reactors for power—and in some places on Earth, they are an ideal solution. In Antarctica, it’s thousands of miles to any logistics support, and ships can visit only briefly during summer. You can fly in diesel generators and fuel, which is being done today but think of the cost of moving heavy liquid fuels by transport plan. What if there was another way?
And, access all episodes of End of the Line on Engineering TV along with all of our other series.
* * *
Episode Transcript:
Imagine for a moment that you’re an engineer with a tough problem: to provide electric power to a remote research station in Antarctica. Think of the challenges: extreme cold, ice, isolation and complete darkness four months a year.
In Antarctica, it’s literally thousands of miles to any logistics support, and ships can visit only briefly during the summer months. You can fly in diesel generators and fuel—and that is done today—but think of the cost of moving heavy liquid fuels by transport plan.
What if there was another way?
The nuclear division of the Martin Company thought there was, and they created a small, transportable nuclear power plant, called PM-3A, that powers the U.S. Antarctic research station at McMurdo Base. This was essentially a scaled-down commercial nuclear power plant: a pressurized water design with primary and secondary loops generating steam to drive a turbine linked to a generator. Design output was 1,800 kW electrical operating at an 80 percent power factor, while waste heat operated a desalination plant to supply drinking water at a rate of 14,000 gallons a day.
The entire reactor and turbine assembly was designed to be broken down for air transport by C-130, although it was carried to Antarctica by Navy ship. Today, when we’re all talking about small modular reactors, none of this may seem particularly unusual. But the interesting thing about it is that this all happened in the summer of 1962.
Despite the extreme novelty of the design and the difficult conditions under which it was expected to operate—far from technical support and potentially isolated for weeks or months at a time—the entire system was tested and qualified with only 23 months of testing. It lasted for 10 years. What happened? Leaks, particularly between piping connections and cracks due to chloride stress corrosion, combined with the need to maintain a 25-man crew to operate the system, led to its removal in 1972.
Over its 10-year service life, the PM-3A system had availability of just over 72 percent. By 1973, however, the reactor was shut down and decontamination operations started. For detractors, the system was a failure. But a close look at the final operative report, which is available online, shows that system failures were the result of not just the deficiency of materials available half a century ago. Instead, the system failures were due to repeated sensor and control electronics problems, along with plant shutdowns for maintenance, repair of systems not involved in the reactor itself, plus crew training and changeover.
Could a system like this be built today, with today’s digital controls and even materials? Without doubt. Back then, this then-novel system, designed by teams of engineers with slide rules and less computing power than a pocket calculator, assembled and delivered their reactor and generator system in less than two years. I think that with modern digital twin and simulation technology, it can be done today in two months.
So, in an age when Germany wonders if it will freeze in the dark, and environmentalists demand the complete shutdown of fossil fuels by 2050, why aren’t we doing something like the PM-3A right now?
