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 post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
129 points (90.1% liked)
News
23261 readers
4278 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
If I'm not mistaken SMRs also handle power demand shifts better and don't have to just do a base load. Something very useful with the growth of renewables and how they are not always supplying power.
Renewables being unable to do base load is just a myth that has been debunked countless times.
I've love for just one of the people anonymously downvoting to chime in. What you wrote is completely accurate but every nuclear-themed post here and on Reddit is downvoted without anyone putting forward a counter-argument.
here https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1610381114 we can talk about this, feel free to put forward counter arguments, the gist of the cited paper is that previous studies claiming 100% renewable baseload is possible requires sketchy manipulation of the expected demand as well as currently unavailable storage technology on an almost impossible scale. We're working on all kinds of storage solutions but the reality is we're not there yet. I'm rooting for molten salt storage or compressed gas storage rather than ramping up more lithium battery storage. Flow batteries are promising as well, but in any case we won't have enough storage or transmission capability to have a 100% renewable baseload in the next couple of decades.
Looks like someone beat me to it :)
"In sum, Clack et al.’s analysis is riddled with errors and has no impact on Jacobson et al.’s conclusions."
load more comments
(11 replies)
renewables can theoretically do baseload. The problem with renewables is that they don't really have a good pairing with something that would make it SIGNIFICANTLY easier to do.
Nuclear and solar power would make a great pairing for summer time midday peak draws for example. Wind is a good supplementary source. Hydro is a good stored energy source.
You can definitely do full renewable but it will still inevitably be better complimented by some form of baseload plant (i.e. nuclear)
load more comments
(5 replies)
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."
They also depend on a final nuclear disposal site.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
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's absolutely what's going on here. the whole "nuclear renaissance" is nothing but a smoke screen.
Yeah unless it's we all suddenly rush to build them and all the renewable options for padding the grid then, yeah. It's just a ruse to make it look like we are doing anything at all to make people feel better about flying private jets for a day trip to their favorite fishing pond. (Something I know a millionaire does personally)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yes, Soviet/Russian technology, the posterchild for prudence and carefulness.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
When they say small, how small are we talking? The size of a sedan? A school bus?
view more: next ›