Small nuke reactors are really coming online by next year, US energy secretary insists US Energy Secretary Chris Wright believes that the country will have at least one small nuclear rector up and running by July 2026, despite the fact that not a single one has been built to date, after multiple failed attempts. In an interview with Bloomberg on Monday, Wright said that the US would have at least one reactor …
This Reactor is not recyclable. At end-of-life, please dispose of responsibly.
For a list of recommended disposal sites, see www.nuciear-burials-below-1km.gl *
Prices start from as little as $10 Bn.
* [greenland] Note that your site may be directly beneath a US military base, in which event safety standards will be rigorously brown-enveloped.
We already have the technology to build and operate small reactors, and even have acceptable levels of safety when sealing humans in a small metal tube with said reactors, and submerging it in up to a thousand feet of water. I used to work for a company with both big nuke operating experience and at the time had ambitions in new big nuclear in the UK, so I know full well that civil nuclear permitting is a black hole of backward looking regulatory obstructiveness and stupidity...but, but, but....if government are really behind the concept, how difficult is it to tell Westinghouse or Rolls Royce to crimp out another submarine reactor, nail a genset on the end, and link it to the grid? At a push the grid connection and genset commissioning can be done in days, maybe a year and a half to get an additional sub reactor produced.
I suspect there's one simple problem, and that's a governmental obsession of "market forces" and "private capital". If that's right, the wankers of government need to accept that the heat death of the universe will arrive before the private sector will take on the risks of nuclear, big or small.
Just make sure they are built to acceptable safety standards(in decending order of likelyhood)
1. Must not leak
2. Must make power
3. Safe when powered down
4. Safe in the event of coolant failure
5. Safe for the next 11 billion years.
6. Safe from terrorist attack
7. Safe from having an aircraft crash into it.
8. Safe from a mag 9.3 earthquake.
9. Safe from a 10 metre tsunami
10. Safe from a direct hit from a metorite.
11. Safe from a godzilla attack
12. Safe from a government minister who knows what they are doing
This post has been deleted by its author
The issue is not being able to build nuclear reactors. The issue is building them on time and on budget.
The overall costs of submarine reactors, including capital cost, fuel, and operation are too high to be competitive compared to normal commercial reactors. The first US utility reactor was actually a reactor intended for an aircraft carrier that was installed on land. This however was simply used by a collection of utilities to gain experience and train personnel and was never supposed to be competitive in terms of cost. The fuel used by present day US and UK (the UK uses fuel bought from the US) submarine reactors is considered to be bomb grade material under international arms control regulations and so is not practical to use in commercial circumstances either (as well as being very expensive).
The SMRs which are finding actual customers are simply conventional utility reactors simplified and made smaller to allow for the maximum work to be done in the factory and with the minimum on-site assembly. This is analogous to how modular construction techniques have revolutionized shipbuilding compared to the days of assembling a ship from bits and pieces on the slipway.
The very smallest SMRs (tens of megawatts) are unlikely to ever be cost competitive in utility operations as there are considerable economies of scale in power plant building and operation. At present the 300 to 500 MW range looks more realistic, and this is in fact close to the size of a lot of typical reactors built in the 1960s and 70s. Construction times were typically 5 or 6 years from start of construction to grid connection. The really big reactors (1,000 to 1,600 MW) came later in the 1970s and 80s.
Agree and disagree. The current large nuclear power plants suffer economically because there are no economies of scale. There's relatively few of them, every site has its challenges (both in terms of geography and governance), and the workforce to build and operate them is different every time. As you say, SMRs have the promise to profit from economies of scale, when you build (and tear down) hundreds of them in a specialized factory where talent is retained, and then ship and operate them easily and nuclear-maintenance free. This would apply more to the double-digit MW range rather than three or more digits. I think the jury's still out on whether SMRs can deliver on that promise, and whether the costs will be comparable to wind and solar, but I do see the potential.
> At present the 300 to 500 MW range looks more realistic, ... Construction times were typically 5 or 6 years ...
For comparison, the same (average not peak) amount of solar energy as a typical 300MW nuclear station produces requires only 60 people to work 5 days week, 50 weeks/yr for 5-6 years to deploy.
And that is before you make any sort of large scale automatic machine to drill/pile/install panels continuously.
It is this huge labour disparity, as well as the incremental commissioning (i.e. you start getting power in the first year) that really consigns nuclear to a minor role in those parts of the world where you can roll out large scale solar and wind.
Current U.S. submarines use uranium 235 fuel enriched to at least 93%. French and Chinese submarines use low-enriched uranium but of course this is not where the US has design expertise so it would take some time to catch up. If I remember correctly older US nuclear subs used much lower uranium enrichment levels (40 to 60%?) so that could be a good starting point if the design and manufacturing documents are still with us. Current US sub reactors are designed to last from 10 to 33 years with somewhere around the high end being a reasonable design goal.
The one thing I do want to see is the huge AI computer farm companies supply their own power infrastructure since they create an equally huge drain on the existing power grids that they are not designed to handle and would take equally huge amounts of money to upgrade. It would be even better if they would pay for it without government subsidies, AKA taxes on the public. Well I can dream can't I?
On second thought what I would really like to see is AI that doesn't need anywhere near that much power. Still dreaming I see.
Unlike most of the bizarre collection of crackpots, weirdos and sociopaths Trump has assembled to foster his Great Leap Backwards, Wright actually has some credentials other than bombast and a generally rotten attitude. He has bachelors and masters degrees in Engineering and runs an energy company. It therefore seems conceivable that he could know what he's talking about.
Personally, I think Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) will prove to cost more overall and be more aggravating to permit, build, operate and decommission than a conventional reactor with the same total energy output. But it's clear that some SMRs are going to be built. And if that's the case, the US needs to get moving on them if it doesn't want to be buying the technology from China which is claiming they will bring their first ACP100 unit online in 2026.
"It therefore seems conceivable that he could know what he's talking about."
If he does it's likely he has in mind something such as one of the micro-reactors already under construction as mentioned in the article. Failing that Musk could knock up something that looks like one with a few used Tesla batteries turning a morot turning the gen set. Or maybe just a man inside winding a handle on the gen set.
He has bachelors and masters degrees in Engineering and runs an energy company. It therefore seems conceivable that he could know what he's talking about.
He's also predicting working fusion reactors supplying grid power in 8-15 years. Much though I'd love that to be correct, it rather suggests he has typical techbro delusions about how fast things can be done (and maybe the belief that all safety regulations should be thrown away in order to get there). From many decades of experience I'd say the one certainty of any engineering project is that it always takes longer than you think (even when allowing for it taking longer than you think).
And they are going to get that done and the permissions for a site in less than 10 years? Cut a line of that for my nose.
The main job of the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency is to say no and they have years of experience saying "no". To say "yes" creates a hot potato.
If you go back to the actual document authorizing this, it's clear that he's talking about demonstration reactors on US military or Department of Energy (who look after nuclear stuff) property, not grid scale SMRs. A technology demonstrator may not even include the steam system and generator.
Whether they can have one of those running within a year depends on whether someone has the parts to build one already sitting around, and even then it would be a stretch.
Currently, outside of China and Russia there is exactly one serious (300 MW) commercial SMR under construction anywhere and that is in Canada just east of Toronto. That one started construction late last year and is expected to start up in 2029 and be in service by 2030, with 3 more to follow. The electrical generator alone takes several years to build.
The US have a memorandum of understanding with Canada to get access to the experience (cost and timing) of building SMRs in Canada and plan to use that to base their own SMR strategy on.
" ... The US have a memorandum of understanding with Canada to get access to the experience (cost and timing) of building SMRs in Canada and plan to use that to base their own SMR strategy on. ... "
Given the way that Trump has treated Canada lately, what do you suppose that's worth?
"Whether they can have one of those running within a year depends on whether someone has the parts to build one already sitting around, and even then it would be a stretch."
It may depend more on the speed of the regulators. The only team in the U.S. who currently has permits to build demo reactors is Kairos Power, and they have already shown they can quickly build reactor vessels. (Their latest vessel was built in the UK a few months ago, making use of Sheffield Forge's electron beam welding process, which greatly reduced build time.) But a permit to build the demo facility is just the start of the paperwork. The onsite NRC inspector has to sign off on every pour of nuclear-related concrete. And they are still working through the process to get their fuel and production line certified, to get a permit to make the fuel, another to transport the fuel (in certified casks), another to load the fuel, and site and personnel licenses to actually operate the reactor. They are not currently expecting to get through all the regulatory certification, permit, and licensing requirements before 2027.
I regularly drive by the remains of the Trojan nuclear power plant. It was started in the late 1960's based off 1950's technology. It was a center point of protests for years, back when my parents were young.
In a different context, I have a 1950's vehicle which is now referred to as a "collector car". The engine powers the wheels, the steering wheel moves left & right, and the brake pedal makes it stop. Nevertheless, the technology in my "new" 2021 vehicle is several orders of magnitude beyond this vintage car. However basic functionality is the same - start/stop, left right, etc.
Both are powered by a liquid fuel which can be explosive when combined with oxygen & spark, and are subject to the same laws of physics when impacting an immoveable object. The safety in the new car is such that all but the most severe accidents are survivable whereas the old car has a non-collapsing steel shaft (steering column) pointed at my chest.
The new car has incredible emission controls and the old car is sniff-test noticeable when running.
Is it reasonable to assume nuclear technology has advanced by the amount over the intervening decades? Is it time to give it another look?
Or, are we still stuck with the old paradigms of our parent's generation about the evil's of nuclear power?
The 'safety' side of nuclear power is just one aspect of why these things aren't everywhere.
Basically, taken from drawing board to final resting place maintenance, it is 'fucking-expensive-way-to-generate-electricity'.
When those holding the purse strings do the sums we can understand why it's pride more than sense that overcomes the reluctance to start paying.
Having cheap renewables on the scene (regardless of their current drawbacks) doesn't make nuclear look a whole lot more attractive.
You should realise that under UK law the formula ensures the costliest source of electricity sets the consumer price for all the other sources of electricity. Even if a source cost £0 we would all still pay the rate dictated by the most expensive source. Isn't that just lovely?
Modern reactor designs are safe as there are also multiple redundant systems that will shut the reactor down on excessive heating and remaining decay heat can be exhausted via convection.
The possibility of a hydrogen explosion has now been dealt with via inclusion of hydrogen catalysts.
Reactor meltdowns have been an extremely rare occurrence and it seems the level of destruction, death and radiation leakage has been far less than what coal plants have caused.
It's quite sad I cannot have a GNUclear reactor in my back yard.
"Modern cars don't have emission controls, because they don't emit."
Again one of those "Electricity comes from the wall socket" -people. It is not energy *source*, it's a delivery method for energy extracted from actual sources. Like coal, oil or others.
Petrol comes literally from the ground and is the source by itself: Apples and bananas comparison,quite stupid by itself.
"It's not the back-end electricity production, but the whole nuclear system running, demonstrating how it will work,"
Despite (or maybe "Because of" ? These are politicians* after all.) the use of the word "whole," assuming the use of re-defined terms (well, phrases, really) may be the key to understanding this press release.
"whole nuclear system running" plus "demonstrating" = achieving criticality (and that's it!)
Meaning: no need to make it useful (i.e. extracting heat from the system and turning it into electricity), yet, just get that neutron lifecycle to create fractionally more neutrons after each fission event (technically, this means achieving "mild super criticality" possibly measured in "decades per hour" rather than "decades per minute"), assuming one wants to ramp up (thermal) power from uWatts to maybe something in the whole Watt range.
A side effect of redefining terms certainly puts the "small" into "small reactor". Rather than an entire plant, or even a core (surrounded by a pressure vessel of some sort, with coolant running to a (simulated) steam powered generator subsection), we're probably looking at a demo "cell" plus a bunch of test/support equipment to heat it up and "hold the neutrons in".
* How to tell when a politician is lying: their lips are moving.
What made me think the most was
”...our fear is with the old way it worked, five years from now we will still be talking about 'soon, we're going to have SMRs,'" Wright said. "Some of them can be built quickly."
Chernobyl was built so quickly its management won medals and prizes. The NRC spends so much time checking up on pestilent things like safety.
A lot of the problems with smaller reactors not being cost competitive, and needing HALEU, comes down the use of water as a moderator (and coolant). As it boils at 100 celsius (under standard temperature and pressure) it is easier for water based reactors to suffer a loss of coolant accident. Extensive layers of safety systems are needed to mitigate this risk, but then those same layers are needed on smaller water cooled reactors, driving up the overall cost. Nuscale kind of gets around this, but still requires construction of a massive underground swimming pool.
Non water cooled and moderated reactors often need HALEU because without it they don't have enough neutrons to maintain a chain reaction without also having a massive core (like the graphite moderated British Advanced Gas Reactors).
Yttrium Hydride moderator may be a solution to this conundrum, offering moderation as good as water, but not boiling away in an accident scenario. Yttirum hydride moderated reactors would enable the use of other coolants such as gas, molten salt, liquid lead without the penalty of having to use a worse moderator such as graphite, or more highly enriched U235 HALEU fuel.
Of course Yttrium Hydride is not yet ready to go into commercial reactors, and could with some more government funded science to get it there.
One interesting idea for a smaller modular reactor is the direct cycle gas turbine reactor where gas passes from a core driectly through a turbine. All other reactors pass the coolant through a steam generator which then powers a steam turbine.
Cost savings would emerge as gas only turbines (as used in natural gas power plants) have lower maintenance costs than water to steam turbines (as used in current nuclear and coal fired power plants).
https://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/Updated-engines-20201224.pdf
What ever became of this project at Lockheed Martin?
