Small Nuclear Power Modules - why they always fail

[Dennis P Brown]

First, here is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1ecjYFYTo

This commentator is both reliable and careful on their research so I tend to believe their general conclusions. This is something I think is very relevant and needs to be understood relative to these Small Modular Units (SMU's) based on fission power.
A few highlights
1) Cost of small nuclear powered modular plants - both in cost per unit and cost per kilowatt-hour is prohibitive compared to most other electric generating systems currently available
2) Frankly, the window where these small nukes could compete with wind, solar and new scalable battery tech closed awhile ago and apparently, not likely to be open no matter the design. The fact is, the cost of solar panels is so low (per kilowatt-hr) that even gas plants have issues competing in the highest cost markets. Wind is the cheapest of all now and just requires a better grid (a very simple fix speaking technically but certainly not socially (kinda ironic that "not on my land" by the NIMBY crowd is preventing grid expansion - besides cost issues.)
3) Scaling down nukes in size just made the unit/KWH cost worse; the need for the quantity of units produced was totally missed. These two factors kill the economics of going smaller ignoring waste fuel handling (locally!) and security issues
4) Insurance is a DOA and not just due to safety concerns because its nuclear

Large Gigawatt nuclear plants which were the best solution in the past was not followed for many reasons. But arguing about that is like arguing about history - interesting only in an academic sense. As he mentions, even China with zero regulation issues and a determined and well financed effort takes well over a decade to build just one SMU. And, apparently, they appear to have little interest in any mass production approch.

Looks like wind, solar and battery storage is currently the best approch remaining on a cost bases in generating carbon free power. No hidden costs, only getting cheaper with time, no insurance issues, nor scaling problems due to this being very mature and proven low mfg & operating costs. Even battery tech looks like something that is now really coming along and isn't a likely problem now even ignoring Lithium battery's. If not for the innate opposition of coastal or rural regions to new wind/solar units and especially the massive opposition to the right of way for power lines those alternate power sources would seem be rather viable for carbon free electrical generation (but these power sources only address electricity generation; I still believe that these are utterly useless for transportation; EV's are currently too expensive and really bad for the environment. New battery may change that but doesn't look viable for many years yet.)

[JoeBallantyne]

We already have proven small nuclear power units. We use them in aircraft carriers and on submarines. We have for like 50 years or so. Admiral Rickover just GOT IT DONE. Just like General Groves did. (Back in the days when the great US of A GOT STUFF DONE.)

If we really wanted to just GET IT DONE, Biden could just declassify every last scrap of information about those navy reactors and publish it ALL to the whole world. China included.

Ramp up the manufacturing to 1000 units a year or more, put them all on military bases, and make one of the primary jobs of the army protecting them. The fact that they use HEU or whatever fuel they use, is then irrelevant. Military already protects our nukes, they can protect some power plants that use old school risky (in the proliferation sense) fuel too.

When you really ramp up the manufacturing, costs do come down dramatically. Especially if you have private industry do it, and keep the government and the military industrial base contractors out of it.

Done.

Build 10000 100MW fission power plants using the EXISTING, PROVEN designs. Like NOW ALREADY.

It would make a difference. All the coal and natural gas plants in the USA would just go POOF. The 24x7x365 baseline power problems of other renewables also go POOF.

Will it ever happen? No.

We're just too stupid and too scared.

But, but, but, but, but... we can't do that because...

Joe.

[Richard Hull]

Just talk about nuclear energy sends most everyone screaming in terror. Green planet sounds so much better. Most folks are just too stupid to cast future power needs into a reality.

Richard Hull

[Frank Sanns]

Part of the problem is also lower level nuclear waste. While it is not really a hazard, it is a nuisance. Lots of it is generated.

Fuel rod reprocessing also generates other materials that are a bit of an issue.

Still, it is doable but not without a good full cycle/life plan or the planet ends up with the next hard to deal with problem in 100 years.

[Dennis P Brown]

All that super hot nuclear waste from conventual plants are an absolute gold mine - current stock piles could power all current US electrical needs for 100 years. All one needs to do is use a fast neutron liquid ceramic fueled reactor core. Now that design is a cost effective design (useless for military applications) and why it was never built. That design concept is cheap to build, needs zero operating personnel to run and can't melt down. But the fact that it can't be used in carriers/subs means it was not considered as viable so was never financed. That was just beyond stupid.
As for small reactors - the fact that they cost more per kilo-watt - hr means it can't compete with solar, much less wind.

[JoeBallantyne]

They don't have to compete with solar or wind. They are needed to complement solar and wind. They do have to compete with gas and coal. But I would be surprised if they were being manufactured in gigafactories at 1-2 thousand per year, if they couldn't compete with fossil fuel plants just fine. Just put Elon Musk in charge of getting them built. He'd get it DONE.

What happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?

And most of your power comes from wind and solar?

Oh that's right. The cost of power goes straight through the roof.

California already has this problem where its industrial solar farms have to curtail their output because there is nowhere for it to go.

Price of power goes negative for parts of the day, but then rises dramatically when the sun sets.

Does the inexpensive daytime power cut California customers bills? Actually not at all, it cuts the bills for other states that literally get paid to take the excess power. CA rate payers are locked in paying rates that were negotiated to pay for the solar farms output, and they can't even use the power they paid for. It goes elsewhere, or gets turned off.

Totally insane.

The Enron types who trade power, profit very nicely. The rate payers however are paying more than ever for their power in CA.

Most likely it will only get worse as more and more of the CA grid goes "green".

We shall see. Because 10000 baseline small nuclear reactors ain't gonna be coming online in CA or anywhere else.

Joe.

[Jim Kovalchick]

Dennis,
Interesting conversation.

In my work, I specialize in new nuclear including advanced reactor technologies. Rather than comment on this thread because I have too much insider information, I will just give this bit of feedback: the term is SMR not SMU. No one seriously in the game uses the latter term.

Best regards,
Jim

[Richard Hull]

Let's face it....
With the solar and wind facilities, it is really about storage of energy. To do this we rape the earth for a large number of huge quantities of rather rare substances. (expensive)

Fission is the best as it rapes the earth for Uranium, and maybe in future, Thorium. There is no separate storage issue with fission.

Fusion energy is a quest that will be tilting at windmills for another century or two. (unless the aliens help us out.).

The atomic future has and always will be, for the foreseeable and doable future, fission.

Richard Hull

[Dennis P Brown]

The new battery tech - Sulfur and Iron/oxygen do not require any exotic/expensive or environmentally unfriendly elements. So with the recent start to build large mega-watt (for 3 days power supply) battery storage (Fe-O), looks like its is becoming a reality. I've also seen that Sulfur batteries are being commercially produce but haven't seen any large storage facilities yet.

As for nuclear, existing super high level waste fuel rods in storage are an ideal fuel source (fast reactors) so new uranium production isn't really needed. But also, ocean execration from sea water is an existing tech - just not cheap enough but not too expensive, either.