First U.S. Small Nuclear Reactor Design Is Approved

[Lupus]

Radioactive material that remains as such for decades, is pretty far from perfection.

The amount of waste generated from nuclear is not a lot as you'd think.

 

[Lupus]

Oh, right so it's safer in that it can be maintained and improved more easily than current typical designs. Fair enough.


It's not really the point. We have so much fissile material, potentially based on future technological breakthrough, coupled with MOX fuel, that nuclear might as well be renewable not because it is actually renewable but that it will virtually last for millennia. Renewable doesn't really mean renewable anymore, it means whatever will last a really long time. Solar isn't renewable, technically. Raw materials are required to make the panels, that are themselves limited due to degradation and have about an ~85% recyclable recovery rate.

I think it's estimated at ~50,000 years worth of nuclear fuel if scientists and engineers can develop a workable and viable ocean sieving solution.

Never mind that if/when breeder and fusion reactors become commercially viable, then nuclear will truly become renewable in every sense of the word.

Yet we are years away from this, because of the nuclear panic

 

[Lupus]

The point is that nuclear powered electricity generators is not a long term solution.

It is actually a long term solution

 

[LazyLion]

This is great news, and hopefully those raging fires in the West of the USA will drive the point home about global warming and the need for nuclear.
The rest of the scientifically illiterate people will just have to get up to speed and get on board.

 

[Magnum]

Perfection is the enemy of good.

There isn't infinite amount of materials to make solar panels or wind farms either, so I guess they must also not be renewable.
Nuclear power uses the most energy dense resource we have discovered.

I Beg to differ. You have not experianced how much energy is contained in a body. I know of some politicians that would greatly contribute to expanding that infinite energy source research...

 

[Nicodeamus]

The problem with nuclear is that it requires a large investment, which requires large loans and we all know how that goes

Some of them have gotten to big to fail, but that is a organizational issue. SMRs are suppose to solve that issue.

 

[Johnatan56]

I doubt it.
The fuel for nuclear reactors is limited.
Nuclear power is not a viable/sustainable long-term solution.

As others have said, that limit is pretty far away, just from current estimates it's over 200 years of reserves left, and that's assuming all nuclear reactors continue using up as much as they do, while more modern ones are a lot more efficient.

We don't have renewables, you've got to replace and dispose of solar panels and wind uses a lot of other resources and land. It's also not perfect as look at California they have load shedding thanks to trying to go renewables only.

That's wrong, sections of the grid were turned off due to the heat. They're worried about wildfires, has nothing to do with the source of power.

You'd be right in saying that California has some of the most expensive electricity in the world due going heavily into renewables and turning off all coal plants, but then you'd need to take into account they did this over a decade ago, back when renewable was a lot more expensive than it is today.

I doubt it.
The fuel for nuclear reactors is limited.
Nuclear power is not a viable/sustainable long-term solution.

As others have said, that limit is pretty far away, just

We don't have renewables, you've got to replace and dispose of solar panels and wind uses a lot of other resources and land. It's also not perfect as look at California they have load shedding thanks to trying to go renewables only.

That's wrong, sections of the grid were turned off due to the heat. They're worried about wildfires, has nothing to do with the source of power.

You'd be right in saying that California has some of the most expensive electricity in the world due going heavily into renewables and turning off all coal plants, but then you'd need to take into account they did this over a decade ago, back when renewable was a lot more expensive than it is today.

Coal power stations are still being build on South East Asia and most likely it will drive Africa's development.

Here is more on the doomsdaying predictions. Coal at one stage was predicted to run out, then oil, now Nuclear..

Coal is not really being phased out because of limits, more because it does a lot of CO2 emissions, and compared to modern renewable, it can't really compete anymore.

I think just being able to make them in a factory rather than making them on site will eliminate a lot of problems and make things like maintenance much easier. One of the reasons why France has a good nuclear program is because all their reactors share a common design, this allows them to fix design issues quickly and across all the stations.

Yes and no, it was/is also heavily backed by their government with very large subsidies, and they did not price the decomissioning costs into the cost of electricity. The plants themselves though were quite good, so are the US ones. The issue is more that not many have built more nuclear reactors, so the skills and experience are a lot more limited than they were 30/40 years ago, so the risk of building new ones goes up, plus there are a lot more safety measures (which is good, and shows a maturing tech, but increases costs quite a bit).

There is just such a large impact if nuclear goes wrong, that even going small nuclear reactors would be slightly frightening if checks are more lax for it.

EDIT:
You should read the FAQ on it:

Do newer nuclear plants produce electricity at competitive prices?

Nuclear power plants are very costly to build. The Wall Street firm Lazard’s 2019 annual report on costs of generating electricity, estimated that a new nuclear plant costs between $6,900 and $12,200 for each kilowatt of generation capacity; in other words a nuclear plant that is designed to generate a gigawatt of electricity could cost around $7 to $12 billion. This is much higher than any of the other standard forms of generation, especially renewable sources like solar photovoltaics and wind energy, which cost around $1,000 or $1,500 per kilowatt of generation capacity. Not surprisingly, the cost of electricity produced by new nuclear plants is very high. Further, operating a nuclear plant is also more expensive than renewables. This is why even nuclear power plants that have already accounted for construction costs are having trouble competing in electricity markets with wind, solar, and gas-fueled electricity.

Will Small Modular Nuclear Reactors be economically competitive?

There are good reasons why SMRs will cost more than large nuclear reactors on a per kW basis. One reason is that they lose out on economies of scale. A nuclear power plant that generates 1,000 MW of electricity does not require five times as much concrete or metal, nor does it employ five times as many workers as one that generates only 200 MW. If one goes by a standard rule of thumb used in cost estimates of power plants, if a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant costs $10 billion (i.e., $10000/kW), an SMR with a power capacity of 200 MW would be expected to have a construction cost of $3.8 billion or around $19,000/kW. Although SMR vendors claim that they can compensate for the loss in economies of scale through mass manufacture and learning, this is unlikely because historically nuclear power plants have not demonstrated learning. If SMRs will be more expensive than large nuclear reactors, which are themselves not competitive, then SMRs will also not be economically competitive.

NuScale/UAMPS Small Modular Nuclear Reactors: Frequently Asked Questions

Oregon PSR is an organization of health professionals and concerned individuals working collaboratively with community partners to educate and advocate for societal and policy change that protects human health at the local, state, national and internation

www.oregonpsr.org

So based on the Lazard report, you could build around 15-20MW of renewable for every 1MW of that modular design. One would be a bit crazy to invest in that. Rather go CSP, etc.

From the paper:

 

[Kieppie]

As others have said, that limit is pretty far away, just from current estimates it's over 200 years of reserves left, and that's assuming all nuclear reactors continue using up as much as they do, while more modern ones are a lot more efficient.

That's wrong, sections of the grid were turned off due to the heat. They're worried about wildfires, has nothing to do with the source of power.

You'd be right in saying that California has some of the most expensive electricity in the world due going heavily into renewables and turning off all coal plants, but then you'd need to take into account they did this over a decade ago, back when renewable was a lot more expensive than it is today.

As others have said, that limit is pretty far away, just

That's wrong, sections of the grid were turned off due to the heat. They're worried about wildfires, has nothing to do with the source of power.

You'd be right in saying that California has some of the most expensive electricity in the world due going heavily into renewables and turning off all coal plants, but then you'd need to take into account they did this over a decade ago, back when renewable was a lot more expensive than it is today.

Coal is not really being phased out because of limits, more because it does a lot of CO2 emissions, and compared to modern renewable, it can't really compete anymore.

Yes and no, it was/is also heavily backed by their government with very large subsidies, and they did not price the decomissioning costs into the cost of electricity. The plants themselves though were quite good, so are the US ones. The issue is more that not many have built more nuclear reactors, so the skills and experience are a lot more limited than they were 30/40 years ago, so the risk of building new ones goes up, plus there are a lot more safety measures (which is good, and shows a maturing tech, but increases costs quite a bit).

There is just such a large impact if nuclear goes wrong, that even going small nuclear reactors would be slightly frightening if checks are more lax for it.

EDIT:
You should read the FAQ on it:

So based on the Lazard report, you could build around 15-20MW of renewable for every 1MW of that modular design. One would be a bit crazy to invest in that. Rather go CSP, etc.

From the paper:
View attachment 910526

You forgot to factor in for land usuage.

"A nuclear energy facility has a small area footprint, requiring about 1.3 square miles per 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity. This figure is based on the median land area of the 59 nuclear plant sites in the United States. In addition, nuclear energy facilities have an average capacity factor of 90 percent, much higher than intermittent sources like wind and solar.

By contrast, wind farm capacity factors range from 32 to 47 percent, depending on differences in wind resources in a given area and improvements in turbine technology. Solar PV capacity factors also vary based on location and technology, from 17 to 28 percent.

Taking these factors into account, a wind farm would need an installed capacity between 1,900 megawatts and 2,800 MW to generate the same amount of electricity in a year as a 1,000-MW nuclear energy facility. Such a facility would require between 260 square miles and 360 square miles of land." NEI

Also the seasonality makes both solar and wind impracticable in much of the world. More being built will also decrease the cost just like it did for solar and wind generation as well as improve research. Current technology in storage is a extremely limiting factor. Hopefully new research in industrial sized batteries can change that, but recycling batteries and PV remains a big issue.

As a side note investing in Nuclear is also better for future tech. I doubt we'll have spaceships powered by Solar or wind, but we will most likely by a derivative of nuclear.

 

[quovadis]

The problem with nuclear is that it requires a large investment, which requires large loans and we all know how that goes

Sure but hopefully it moves to smaller units which require less servicing and are more affordable.

 

[Johnatan56]

You forgot to factor in for land usuage.

"A nuclear energy facility has a small area footprint, requiring about 1.3 square miles per 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity. This figure is based on the median land area of the 59 nuclear plant sites in the United States. In addition, nuclear energy facilities have an average capacity factor of 90 percent, much higher than intermittent sources like wind and solar.

By contrast, wind farm capacity factors range from 32 to 47 percent, depending on differences in wind resources in a given area and improvements in turbine technology. Solar PV capacity factors also vary based on location and technology, from 17 to 28 percent.

Taking these factors into account, a wind farm would need an installed capacity between 1,900 megawatts and 2,800 MW to generate the same amount of electricity in a year as a 1,000-MW nuclear energy facility. Such a facility would require between 260 square miles and 360 square miles of land." NEI

Also the seasonality makes both solar and wind impracticable in much of the world. More being built will also decrease the cost just like it did for solar and wind generation as well as improve research. Current technology in storage is a extremely limiting factor. Hopefully new research in industrial sized batteries can change that, but recycling batteries and PV remains a big issue.

As a side note investing in Nuclear is also better for future tech. I doubt we'll have spaceships powered by Solar or wind, but we will most likely by a derivative of nuclear.

The land it takes up is a false dilemma, just because there is a wind turbine doesn't mean you can't use the land for anything else. E.g. farm land can easily have wind turbines in it. Solar panels in deserts, etc. quite a dumb argument.

Seasonality doesn't make it impractical. Also, summer is the worst time for wind turbines, while winter is the best, while solar is summer best, winter worst. You also don't build wind turbines in areas where there is little wind. That's called planning.
Then in regards to storage, that's not really an issue, especially as it's pretty cheap to build way more wind or solar than you need, again, a false dilemma. At the same time, storage is becoming way cheaper, and there are more and more solutions in regards to "smart" grids. We'll probably see cars be used for storage during off-peak and provide power during peak, though that peak curve has been shifting a lot over the last years, and will probably shift a lot more again as the entire work culture allows more work from home.

I didn't say don't invest in nuclear, just that nuclear is not really viable in today's energy mix anymore, investing for space research is quite different than investing in trying to get it to work on earth.

As an aside, that 32-47% is quite a range, a majority of modern wind farms are over 40%, most of the <40% are due to bad placement or older design wind turbines.

Sure but hopefully it moves to smaller units which require less servicing and are more affordable.

Just because it's smaller doesn't mean servicing will be less, will probably increase the cost as more of them have to be serviced.

 

[Kieppie]

The land it takes up is a false dilemma, just because there is a wind turbine doesn't mean you can't use the land for anything else. E.g. farm land can easily have wind turbines in it. Solar panels in deserts, etc. quite a dumb argument.

Not every country has a desert or necessarily the space to spare. If you had to choose farming & housing is no.1. The country side will look pretty ugly if you had to place enough wind turbines to provide all the electricity. You can't just say farm underneath it. There is not yet enough studies done on the effect that such a large scale installation will have on the weather patterns or wild life. Also for a solar plant it means clearing land, unless you mentioned desert areas. And again not taking into account the heat island effect such large scale installations cause. So no not a non issue.

Seasonality doesn't make it impractical. Also, summer is the worst time for wind turbines, while winter is the best, while solar is summer best, winter worst. You also don't build wind turbines in areas where there is little wind. That's called planning.

I never mentioned anything about planning. Northern hemisphere countries just have less sunlight to work with and there is no getting around it.

Then in regards to storage, that's not really an issue, especially as it's pretty cheap to build way more wind or solar than you need, again, a false dilemma. At the same time, storage is becoming way cheaper, and there are more and more solutions in regards to "smart" grids. We'll probably see cars be used for storage during off-peak and provide power during peak, though that peak curve has been shifting a lot over the last years, and will probably shift a lot more again as the entire work culture allows more work from home.

I'm not concerned with the costs. You missed the point of recycling batteries. Pollution is a greater threat to the planet than climate change. And sure smart grids sound all well and dandy but remember most of the world is 3rd world so car batteries is just fanciful thinking,

I didn't say don't invest in nuclear, just that nuclear is not really viable in today's energy mix anymore, investing for space research is quite different than investing in trying to get it to work on earth.

Yes a hybrid approach is best. Again Nuclear is so costly now since it was basically neglected for a long time. Invest in something if you want to make it cheaper. From a urban planning point of view it is much easier placing a nuclear reactor where needed and even adding a nice wild life reserve around it.

 

[Venom Maker]

Fossil fuels are destroying our environment and air quality and killing many of us on a daily basis due to respiratory problems from the residue of electricity production. With the majority of power stations in South Africa reaching the end of their economical viable operational efficiency we have to look at alternatives like Solar and wind. Looking at the safety record of our old Nuclear tech used in SA, the option to look and implement the smaller nuclear unit will be a definite alternative to fossil fuel dinosaur tech.

Why not also look at re-purposing our existing coal fired power plant boilers to LPG gas, much lower maintenance will be required and gas is a lot more environmentally friendlier. We have an almost infinite supply coming in via a huge pipeline into Mpumalanga from Mozambique where 90% of South Africa's coal fired plants are running in the Highveld

 

[wingnut771]

Fossil fuels are destroying our environment and air quality and killing many of us on a daily basis due to respiratory problems from the residue of electricity production. With the majority of power stations in South Africa reaching the end of their economical viable operational efficiency we have to look at alternatives like Solar and wind. Looking at the safety record of our old Nuclear tech used in SA, the option to look and implement the smaller nuclear unit will be a definite alternative to fossil fuel dinosaur tech.

Why not also look at re-purposing our existing coal fired power plant boilers to LPG gas, much lower maintenance will be required and gas is a lot more environmentally friendlier. We have an almost infinite supply coming in via a huge pipeline into Mpumalanga from Mozambique where 90% of South Africa's coal fired plants are running in the Highveld

LPG is more expensive than coal afaik. So if solar and wind is cheaper than coal then...

 

[ponder]

The amount of waste generated from nuclear is not a lot as you'd think.

It might not be a lot but it has the potential to contaminate large areas for thousands of years.

Chernobyl exclusion zone covers an area of 2,600 km^2. Then we have all the dumpsites for nuclear waste, time will tell how this goes down. If we could ship the crap to the sun I would say a-ok. It's not something I want to leave around for future generations to sort out.

I'm all for science and progress but I've never had an affinity for nuclear...

 

[Kieppie]

It might not be a lot but it has the potential to contaminate large areas for thousands of years.

Chernobyl exclusion zone covers an area of 2,600 km^2. Then we have all the dumpsites for nuclear waste, time will tell how this goes down. If we could ship the crap to the sun I would say a-ok. It's not something I want to leave around for future generations to sort out.

I'm all for science and progress but I've never had an affinity for nuclear...

Chernobyl was the worst that could happen and life adapted. But yeah just keep old nuclear tech away from communist states. and we should be fine. As for the waste ->.SpaceX

 

[ponder]

But yeah just keep old nuclear tech away from communist states. and we should be fine.

It's got fsckall to do with the communist, the majority of meltdowns occurred in western countries. I hate communism but don't go blindly accusing them of schit.

 

[Kieppie]

It's got fsckall to do with the communist, the majority of meltdowns occurred in western countries. I hate communism but don't go blindly accusing them of schit.

I was referring to meltdowns not accidents releasing radiation though. Chernobyl was a direct result of the communist regime cutting corners and not acknowledging the design flaw to save face. The same with Kyshtym.

Anyway moderns designs are much more robust so barring freak accidents like Fukushima it remains one of the safest methods.

 

[Lupus]

It's got fsckall to do with the communist, the majority of meltdowns occurred in western countries. I hate communism but don't go blindly accusing them of schit.

Major melodrama here, even with Chernobyl nuclear is still cleaner and safer than coal, solar and wind.
Wind and solar destroys the environment as well and is ecologically destructive.
Just this happened here recently

Solar tower in Northern Cape singeing birds, ecologist warns

Africa’s first concentrated solar power plant is singeing dozens of birds in an 800°C beam of heat and injuring hundreds more that fly into its mirrors

www.timeslive.co.za

The last meltdown was Fukushima and that was thanks to a Tsunami and even then it's environmental impact was less than coal and other sources.
Solar and wind are not the be all and end all. We need cleaner energy and surprise it's nuclear.

 

[wingnut771]

Chernobyl was the worst that could happen and life adapted. But yeah just keep old nuclear tech away from communist states. and we should be fine. As for the waste ->.SpaceX

What happens to the waste when there is a launch failure and the rocket explodes in the sky?

 

[Kieppie]

What happens to the waste when there is a launch failure and the rocket explodes in the sky?

This is still far off. Once a rocket is safe enough for passengers it's more than safe enough for payload. Also an exploding rocket won't destroy the payload and disperse an radioactive cloud. At worst the payload part will land somewhere. The design of the custom payload delivery system should easily cater for this risk

How economical it will be is another matter as there are over 400000t of it at the moment. Luckily newer reactors are more efficient, but that is still a heck of a lot of launches needed. The Falcon heavy has just over 55t payload.