7 ms·

One thing to follow in terms of nuclear power in the UK is the work being done in small modular reactors (SMR). These are much smaller PWR reactors that are int

One thing to follow in terms of nuclear power in the UK is the work being done in small modular reactors (SMR). These are much smaller PWR reactors that are intended to be considerably cheaper and faster to build than the massive reactors at places like Hinkley Point, Sizewell etc, as well as being far less onerous to decommission. The designs will be such that components can be mass produced in an assembly-line like fashion and transported to the sites. Development is going forward under the UK SMR Consortium (Rolls Royce, NAMRC, NNL and a few others) and there is quite a lot of buzz in the UK's civil nuclear industry at the moment. Some further reading for the interested: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advanced-nuclear-technologies/advanced-nuclear-technologies https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advanced-nuclear-... https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/nuclear/small-modular-reactors.aspx https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/nuclear/sm... https://namrc.co.uk/intelligence/smr/ https://namrc.co.uk/intelligence/smr/

skitout 6y ago
SMR is interesting and have advantages... but it is not ready yet, and there are uncertainty about the cost. Wind and solar are getting so cheap that I have doubt SMR can compete on price... Possibly it could compete at the margin when the cost of storage (electrical and thermal) and demand-response are too expensive. About the current cost of the different type of energy: https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-o... (please note that capacity factor would be different according to the country, for example renewable energy would be more expensive in France than is this document)
- radu_floricica 6y ago
  Economies of scale. Most of the cost for a traditional nuclear plant is regulatory&decomissioning. If new nuclear can get over that, and it's allowed to go through a couple of iterations (which happens much faster nowadays), there is really no way to estimate how low the price can go. A 10x reduction is not out of question, if you look at SpaceX for example, another industry where innovation has been frozen for decades.
  - skitout 6y ago
    But the fact is we have now cheap existing clean technologies, with a fast decreasing cost (decreasing cost of energy, and decreasing cost of managing intermittence)... It does not seems wise to bet that SMR will be cheaper than renewable in 10 to 20 years and wait and pray... SMR is not a viable option right now. That is an interesting possibility we should study and work on, that could be a good surprise later on, but right now 1) it is not ready 2) we don't know if it will be cost competitive... Putting aside nuclear risks and radioactive waste problem (that are minimized by SMR)
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      SMRs are being touted not because they are particularly promising, but because they are the last option nuclear supporters have. Traditional reactors have run out of chances, so now it's either the Hail Mary Reactors or give up.
      - jnxx 6y ago
        Are there any known problems or difficulties with them? I guess the materials science aspect is extremely difficult as it is already a huge problem in conventional designs...
        pfdietz 6y ago
        The big problem is diseconomies of scale in construction and operation. They require more material per MW of power, and more staff too. The story is that economies of scale of manufacture, and changes to regulations about operation, can counter this, but that remains to be demonstrated.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      Indeed. We need to keep rolling out renewables until nuclear is ready.
    - rwallace 6y ago
      > But the fact is we have now cheap existing clean technologies, with a fast decreasing cost (decreasing cost of energy, and decreasing cost of managing intermittence) The cost of solar and wind energy when the sun shines or the wind blows has certainly decreased a lot in recent years, you're right about that. But decreasing cost of managing intermittence? I haven't heard of any big recent advances in that (aside from the successful use in Australia of batteries to damp fluctuations on a timescale of minutes, which is great but doesn't address timescales of hours to months). What am I missing?
jnxx 6y ago
So who will bear the financial risk? So far, it is obviously not sustainable to finance nuclear power plants from the electricity they produce. In other words, they are not even viable as a business. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/14/new-uk-nuclear-funding-model-could-leave-taxpayers-liable-edf-sizewell https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/14/new-uk-n...

skitout 6y ago

SMR is interesting and have advantages... but it is not ready yet, and there are uncertainty about the cost. Wind and solar are getting so cheap that I have doubt SMR can compete on price... Possibly it could compete at the margin when the cost of storage (electrical and thermal) and demand-response are too expensive. About the current cost of the different type of energy: https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-o... (please note that capacity factor would be different according to the country, for example renewable energy would be more expensive in France than is this document)

radu_floricica 6y ago
Economies of scale. Most of the cost for a traditional nuclear plant is regulatory&decomissioning. If new nuclear can get over that, and it's allowed to go through a couple of iterations (which happens much faster nowadays), there is really no way to estimate how low the price can go. A 10x reduction is not out of question, if you look at SpaceX for example, another industry where innovation has been frozen for decades.
- skitout 6y ago
  But the fact is we have now cheap existing clean technologies, with a fast decreasing cost (decreasing cost of energy, and decreasing cost of managing intermittence)... It does not seems wise to bet that SMR will be cheaper than renewable in 10 to 20 years and wait and pray... SMR is not a viable option right now. That is an interesting possibility we should study and work on, that could be a good surprise later on, but right now 1) it is not ready 2) we don't know if it will be cost competitive... Putting aside nuclear risks and radioactive waste problem (that are minimized by SMR)
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    SMRs are being touted not because they are particularly promising, but because they are the last option nuclear supporters have. Traditional reactors have run out of chances, so now it's either the Hail Mary Reactors or give up.
    - jnxx 6y ago
      Are there any known problems or difficulties with them? I guess the materials science aspect is extremely difficult as it is already a huge problem in conventional designs...
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        The big problem is diseconomies of scale in construction and operation. They require more material per MW of power, and more staff too. The story is that economies of scale of manufacture, and changes to regulations about operation, can counter this, but that remains to be demonstrated.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Indeed. We need to keep rolling out renewables until nuclear is ready.
  - rwallace 6y ago
    > But the fact is we have now cheap existing clean technologies, with a fast decreasing cost (decreasing cost of energy, and decreasing cost of managing intermittence) The cost of solar and wind energy when the sun shines or the wind blows has certainly decreased a lot in recent years, you're right about that. But decreasing cost of managing intermittence? I haven't heard of any big recent advances in that (aside from the successful use in Australia of batteries to damp fluctuations on a timescale of minutes, which is great but doesn't address timescales of hours to months). What am I missing?

jnxx 6y ago

So who will bear the financial risk? So far, it is obviously not sustainable to finance nuclear power plants from the electricity they produce. In other words, they are not even viable as a business. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/14/new-uk-nuclear-funding-model-could-leave-taxpayers-liable-edf-sizewell https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/14/new-uk-n...