U.S. fast test reactor will pay dividends.

Abstract

In his News story “Congress pushes for multibillion-dollar nuclear reactor that critics call a boondoggle” (3 July, [https://scim.ag/Reactor][1]), A. Cho discusses the proposed Versatile Fast Neutron Source, a test reactor that many in the research community deem important to build. We agree with the nuclear scientists and engineers who support the fast reactor. Technology advances when the tools are available. The fast reactor will enable potentially groundbreaking advances in nuclear energy technology and materials science. If the United States does not have a fast test reactor, our nuclear innovators will have no option but to use the dwindling number of fast test reactors available in other countries. For example, TerraPower, a U.S. nuclear reactor design company, has been forced to rely on a test reactor in Russia for essential materials testing ([ 1 ][2]). As explained in the News story, some don't like the idea of a new American fast-neutron test reactor. But today's commercial reactors, workhorse anchors of the power grid and by far our largest source of emissions-free energy ([ 2 ][3]), are just the beginning of what nuclear energy can do. New technologies promise higher-quality heat, better use of fuel, more flexible operations, and lower-cost fabrication ([ 3 ][4]). Commercialization takes time, and to reap these benefits, we should be working on this now. Building a test reactor takes time, too, and the two most capable test reactors in the United States are each more than 50 years old ([ 4 ][5]). Meanwhile, the planet is warming, and a lot of the energy-hungry developing world is choking on the smoke from fossil-fueled generators. In decades past, the United States was the global leader in nuclear exports ([ 5 ][6]), enabling it to define nonproliferation and safety norms. Now, as the world needs copious amounts of clean, reliable energy, there will be a corresponding global need for a new generation of reactors, whether we develop and export them or leave that to Russia or China. 1. [↵][7]1. J. Conca , “Should the U.S. build a fast nuclear test reactor or continue to be beholden to Russia?,” Forbes (2018); [www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/07/26/should-we-build-a-fast-nuclear-test-reactor-or-continue-to-be-beholden-to-russia][8]. 2. [↵][9]Nuclear Energy Institute, “Nuclear by the numbers” (2018); [www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/resources/fact-sheets/nuclear-by-the-numbers-20180412.pdf][10]. 3. [↵][11]“Advanced nuclear 101,” Third Way (2015); [www.thirdway.org/report/advanced-nuclear-101][12]. 4. [↵][13]1. D. Meserve et al ., “Assessment of user needs for irradiation testing” (2016); [www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/Test%20Reactor%20Charge%20Presentation%2012-9-16_1.pdf][14]. 5. [↵][15]1. L. S. H. Holgate, 2. S. Saha , “America must lead on nuclear energy to maintain national security,” The Washington Quarterly (2018); [https://twq.elliott.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2121/f/downloads/TWQ\_Summer2018\_HolgateSaha.pdf][16]. [1]: http://scim.ag/Reactor [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #ref-5 [7]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [8]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/07/26/should-we-build-a-fast-nuclear-test-reactor-or-continue-to-be-beholden-to-russia [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [10]: http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/resources/fact-sheets/nuclear-by-the-numbers-20180412.pdf [11]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [12]: http://www.thirdway.org/report/advanced-nuclear-101 [13]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [14]: http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/Test%20Reactor%20Charge%20Presentation%2012-9-16_1.pdf [15]: #xref-ref-5-1 View reference 5 in text [16]: http://twq.elliott.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2121/f/downloads/TWQ_Summer2018_HolgateSaha.pdf