1y ago

New-wave reactor technology could kick-start a nuclear renaissance — and the US is banking on it

www.cnn.com

New-wave reactor technology could kick-start a nuclear renaissance — and the US is banking on it | CNN

Off the Siberian coast, not far from Alaska, a Russian ship has been docked at port for four years. The Akademik Lomonosov, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, sends energy to around 200,000 people on land using next-wave nuclear technology: small modular reactors.

This technology is also being used below sea level. Dozens of US submarines lurking in the depths of the world’s oceans are propelled by SMRs, as the compact reactors are known.

SMRs — which are smaller and less costly to build than traditional, large-scale reactors — are fast becoming the next great hope for a nuclear renaissance as the world scrambles to cut fossil fuels. And the US, Russia and China are battling for dominance to build and sell them.

83 comments

One of the less widely discussed issues with nuclear is that the bigger plants are all somewhat unique in their engineering particulars, which makes it more costly to maintain them. SMRs can be more readily standardised, which is expected to improve their economics as well as their cost to maintain.
- This is only partially true, France for example has standardized its reactors in the past, with a lot of success, and is planning to do it again for the new projects which are planned in the 2030s. Now it was done in the past with little care for local populations and so on, so we'll see how it goes. What is true though is that standardization also makes sense when there is a repetitive market foreseen. New nuclear project tend to be announced in small numbers, due to the difficulty of investing so much capital at a time, which makes standardization difficult. Smaller reactors may help, but I remain sceptical with the tech.
- I doubt it. Unless they have power storage of some kind, like SSR designs where they use a thermal battery of some kind.
  The fundamental issue with nuclear power is that it produces a fixed output (which falls over time) which cannot be managed. Aside from just deleting what would otherwise be power (which is where the power storage comes into play)
  It's not impossible though, but then again it's not impossible for any nuclear plant to store energy.
  
  That is a particular type of reactor that is in testing.
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2020/08/31/bill-gates-nuclear-firm-says-new-reactor-can-backstop-grid-with-molten-salt-storage/?sh=d81c7c55e65c
  
  Renewables being unable to do base load is just a myth that has been debunked countless times.
- Can we not standardize the big ones? Their only dependent factor is a big enough water source for cooling, right? Everything else is just land space and supplies.
  
  I think the scale of the projects and the amount of time it takes to build gives people time to work things in to the plans. I also imagine it's affected by the local supply chain.
  That being said I'm more on the fence about them after reading about some of the challenges involved in making them economical. Can you imagine a factory recall on a reactor part? And that's not even talking about nuclear waste disposal which we still haven't figured out reliably beyond "stick it over there and hopefully it won't be a problem for a few hundred years."
  
  The construction projects themselves also typically require upgrades to local infrastructure. I live near the failed nuclear project in SC and they had to upgrade rail infrastructure near my town, they had to build multiple new bridges over the railroad because the clearance wasn't high enough for some of the prefabricated components that had to be transported to the site by rail, etc.
  
  They also depend on a final nuclear disposal site.
  
  Yes and no. Currently the rules around nuclear plants are so strict that each installation becomes bespoke, because small changes that are the reality of construction need to get reapproved.
  If regulatory bodies were more open to approving acceptable ranges, or being proactive in the design process we could have more standardized designs.
  
  I think one of the differences is where the construction happens. SMR should be able to come from the factory in more complete modules, vs assembling everything in the field. While it could never do the volume to make it mass production, in theory you could get similar benefits from automation, repetition, controlled environment, etc. Meanwhile site assembly should be corresponding simpler
  
  you absolutely can, problem is it's just as hard as doing it with SMRs if not harder lol.
- They have only one small drawback, which is that they're nothing but vapourware.
  
  Sadly! I'm not in this field but I had a professor at uni who was involved in these. I wish they were more prevalent
I've been following the situation in Canada. Afaik the closest we are to getting SMRs is a plan to supplement power production at the Darlington, Ontario CANDU plant using SMRs of the GE Hitachi design. The utility is seeking regulatory approval on the first of 4, but they haven't broken ground yet to the best of my knowledge. Each would put out up to 300 Mw, so I guess the completed project would add 1.2 Gw to the grid.
Ontario gets around half its power from nuclear, and the current provincial government is gung-ho on building more capacity. While I am not opposed to the idea (they would need to build more anyway just to maintain that ratio in coming decades), the fact that it comes at the heels of them cancelling nearly every renewable energy project at the beginning of their term adds a sour note. These included those that were actually under construction, and tax money had to foot the bill on broken contracts. It was flabbergasting. I am cautiously optimistic about SMRs but they are still vapourware for the most part at this time.
- It's a known tactic of the fossil fuel industry (and the politicians they own) to push SMRs as a delay tactic, so they can continue to make money from coal and gas for a bit longer. And conservative parties get to play culture war over it, which we know they love to do.
  If something real comes out of it then great, but you can't plan an energy transition based on a technology that isn't proven yet.
  
  Oh man, that is just depressing. I mean I wouldn't put it past them. It's like this whole business with carbon capture.
  A couple of years ago, I was driving around the Permian Basin near Midland, Texas. I asked a local about all these gas flares you'd see. He said it's waste natural gas. They're drilling for oil, you see, so they just burn it off. When I looked incredulous, he added that it's better than simply venting it. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas! Well sure, but…
  Let's just say it would take a lot to convince me at this point that the future is carbon capture.
- That just shows that nuclear is nothing but a smokescreen for perpetuating fossil fuels. First they cancel the renewable projects because they have all those fancy new nukes now. Then the nukes never pan out (as they do). Oh shucks, guess we have to keep using coal.
  
  That's not quite accurate. All the coal power plants in Ontario were shut down about 5-ish years before. Then they had planned more renewable capacity. Then a new leader of the province came in to power (the brother of a famous crackhead mayor), spent money to cancel the projects not with anything to do with nuclear but out of spite of the previous Liberal government.
  Second, you look to Germany whose nuclear power plants were shut down which forced them to reopen coal power plants. Yes renewables are coming in hot and it's the future, but don't get the timeline twisted just to shift blame on nuclear, especially in my native Ontario.
  Indeed yes, the idea of using these technologies to distract from other green energies is a valid concern, but I'll say that until we have fusion (that is always 20 years away from reality) it takes all kinds of green energy sources to transition.
the world’s first floating nuclear power plant
That's a weird thing to say, considering we've had nuclear power plants inside submarines since 1958.
- Yeah, it's pretty common for subs/ships at Pearl harbor to supply power back to the Hawaiian grid in the case of a blackout.
  It honestly could be done at any naval base, but most of them would not be able to meet the needs of the larger urban areas they dock at.
- Ah, but they're not floating. They're sinking, but controlled sinking.
  
  The special thing about submarines isn't that they can go underwater. It's that they can come back up.
Yes, Soviet/Russian technology, the posterchild for prudence and carefulness.
- to be fair, it's trivial to design a safe reactor, the RBMK just wasn't a good design.
  There is a paper out there on the presumed design of russian naval reactors if you want to have a read yourself. It's decently informed.
The Akademik Lomonosov was supposed to cost the equivalent of $232M, but ended up somewhere north of $700M all for a net electrical output of 64MWe. In that respect, it follows a familiar path for nuclear projects.
On a cost/kW basis, it's about three times the cost of wind installations. ($3625/kW vs $1300/kW)
The last co-gen plant I worked on had an output of 353MWe and cost about $450M, which was about $50M under budget.
- This misses one of the key points about smr's. They're supposed to be made in a factory. That ship is one unit and expensive as hell. If you make 100 or more of the same smr, you can amortize the tooling cost over many units. This also allows for configurable size stations. Right now, nuclear stations are one and done, custom jobs.
  
  People keep saying this, but it's not accurate.
  An EPR is an EPR, the same with the AP1000. There are only very minor differences between installs, usually things that will help ease of construction or reliability on future builds. Both are GEN III+ designs, greatly simplified compared to previous generations, with fewer pump, valves and pipe-runs. They also shortened pipe runs where possible. They also have large, factory-built assemblies that are shipped to site, ready to "bolt" in, which should have reduced site construction time.
  Where major changes do happen, it's with the balance of plant infrastructure, which is site dependent. Location of access roads, where the switchyard is installed, where cooling water is accessed , etc will never be the same between sites. Nor will the geotech information. So a lot of mainly civil and structural design and fabrication will always be site specific.
  The KLT-40S reactor is a variant of the KLT-40 reactors developed for and installed in the Taymyr icebreakers back in the late 1980s. It should have been cheap, as it's a known quantity with a long track record.
When they say small, how small are we talking? The size of a sedan? A school bus?
SMRs are interesting.
Frankly i just think we need to take SMR tech and scale it up to stationary plant size. I realize thats a big ask, but it's already a big enough ask to make SMRs a thing that exist and work. Plus a whole plant is more inline with existing regulations.
Also worst case scenario, it's just normal nuclear plants. Instead of a bunch of small ones. We have a bunch of big ones, but with standardized designs.
- Big Bespoke Reactors? Isn’t that what we do now?
  I thought the entire advantage was to be small and use multiple.
  Construction is cheaper because you can gear up a factory to make many of the same thing
  Assembly is cheaper and more reliable because you have more complete modules shipped in for less site assembly
  Sizing is cheaper because instead of designing for the specific site and specific needs, design for how many standard modules you want
  Enhancing is cheaper because a smaller unit is easier to fit into whatever situation you have than to redesign the whole thing
  Maintenance is cheaper because taking one offline is less of a hit in total power generation
  
  I think you'll notice i never said bespoke. Realistically there will be minor differences from plant to plant, but you just design it in such a way that it's modular and not super set in stone, which will help alleviate that problem.
"SMRs — which are smaller and less costly to build than traditional, large-scale reactors"
They somehow forgot to mention a few key things:
They don't actually exist yet.
They may be cheaper but they generate way less power. If you added up the cost of enough SMRs to equal one conventional nuclear plant they would be even more expensive than an already prohibitively expensive method of generating power.
What a dumb article.
- One significant benefit of these would be the lack of transmission losses that plague massive plants which have to send electricity sometimes hundreds of miles. Having smaller units maintained by municipalities would be cheaper for cities far from major electrical plants.
  
  You could make the same argument for renewables though, and they're much, much more inexpensive.
  
  I was curious, so I checked to see the current longest ultra-high voltage dc transmission line:
  The Changji-Guquan ultra-high-voltage direct current (UHVDC) transmission line in China is the world’s first transmission line operating at 1,100kV voltage.
  Owned and operated by state-owned State Grid Corporation of China, the 1,100kV DC transmission line also covers the world’s longest transmission distance and has the biggest transmission capacity globally.
  The transmission line traverses for a total distance of 3,324km (2065 miles) and is capable of transmitting up to 12GW of electricity.
  As a general rule of thumb, HVAC lines will be somewhere around 5-6% line loss per 1000kms, and HVDC somewhere around 3%/1000kms
- They exist, what do you mean? We’ve been powering a fleet of submarines with them since the 1950s.
  Yeah, it’s going to cost a lot upfront to get them commercially viable, but for the few places where renewables need assistance, I don’t see why this can’t make sense.
  
  They exist, what do you mean? We’ve been powering a fleet of submarines with them since the 1950s.
  I'm talking about methods of power generation that contribute to the grid. I thought that was obvious, my bad.
  Yeah, it’s going to cost a lot upfront to get them commercially viable, but for the few places where renewables need assistance, I don’t see why this can’t make sense.
  They will never be commercially viable. The reason we have always built the biggest nuclear plants feasible is because that was the only way that they made any financial sense.
Hey if you spiritual but not religious types could not fuck this up like the boomers did we would all appreciate it. I get it, you got pyramid power and The Secret. I don't care. That is your concern. Once you start shilling for OPEC it becomes our concern.
To my understanding we don't have an energy problem. We have a problem of industrialization in combination with global capitalistic tendencies. No wonder the article mentions the following:
The International Energy Agency, which outlined what many experts say is the world’s most realistic plan to decarbonize, sees a need to more than double nuclear energy by 2050.
Also, taking into consideration how dangerous nuclear accidents are, not only I don't feel any safer with this technology -no matter how much it is praised- I feel literally scared when I hear statements like:
But a nuclear renaissance is coming, the IEA says.
- The problem as I see it is all your statements are "I feel" and "I fear" with no sources about anything either way.
  
  The following is related to SMRs:
  Why Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Won’t Help Counter the Climate Crisis || By Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. and M.V. Ramana, Ph.D.
  And on the problem of Indutrialization some elements can be found here:
  What Are Some of the Drawbacks of Industrialization? - Investopedia
  Summary of "Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism" by David Harvey
  Would the above satisfy you @JungleJim?
- The risk of anything whatsoever happening to any given individual from nuclear is miniscule compared to the very real risk to literally everyone everywhere posed by coal and gas power...
  We're all on a runaway train barreling towards catastrophe, and you're essentially saying the bathroom needs a floor mat so someone doesn't slip and fall. That's about how the risks compare
  
  If that's your take on my comment(s), I would suggest you take a 2nd look at them.
- Also, taking into consideration how dangerous nuclear accidents are, not only I don’t feel any safer with this technology -no matter how much it is praised- I feel literally scared when I hear statements like:
  you should look into the stable salt reactor design.
  Passively safe, inherently contained, and even when catastrophically failed, not a major concern. Many gen IV designs adhere to these sorts of principles. They're just inherently safe now. The only way you can fuck them up is by actually just becoming a problem.
  Nuclear waste storage is still a problem, but greatly reduced with fast reactor designs. For numerous reasons i won't get into right now because this comment would be three pages long otherwise.
  And besides, if you live near a coal plant you are actively consuming more harmful pollutants than if you were near a nuclear plant. Fun fact the japanese government evacuated people into areas WORSE than the initial areas they were in. This was due to gross negligence, but it was such a minor dosage, it basically didn't matter anyway.

83 comments