3 ms·

Small modular reactors may improve on that. Molten salt reactors in particular are supposed to be able to adjust to demand within a minute or so. Another possi

Small modular reactors may improve on that. Molten salt reactors in particular are supposed to be able to adjust to demand within a minute or so. Another possibility, for any sort of high-temperature reactor, is to use molten salt as energy storage. Heat the storage salt directly from the reactor, and put the turbine after that, so you don't have conversion losses before storage. Terrapower is working on this with their Natrium project.

ortusdux 5y ago
I've seen non-photovoltaic solar collectors that heat molten salt and then store it for off-peak use. I wonder if they could be hybridized with small modular MSRs.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Those are no longer cost competitive with PV and batteries.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    But a lot of that is the cost of concentrated solar. On the PV side, batteries are not known for being especially cheap. Lazard puts the wholesale cost of PV plus four hours storage at 8 to 14 cents/kWh, as of 2020: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... And four hours storage is just what you need to shift peak daytime sun to peak evening demand. You need more to get through a windless night. To cover reduced supply on cloudy winter days you need some combination of overcapacity and long-duration storage, which typically involves some kind of turbine.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Batteries are the most expensive storage. Storage cost is plummeting even faster than solar or wind ever did.
adamsmith143 5y ago
>Molten salt reactors in particular are supposed to be able to adjust to demand within a minute or so. Nobody is making these commercially and the SMR companies out there are making standard pressurized water reactors afaik.
- DennisP 5y ago
  A bunch of companies are developing molten salt reactors commercially, including Terrestrial Energy, Moltex, Elysium, Seaborg, Thorcon, and Terrapower.
  - EricE 5y ago
    And if a fraction of the funding that was dumped on frivolous "renewables" in the last 20 years (Solara? Ha - tip of the iceberg for waste!) was instead spent on new reactor designs we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Which is probably why nuclear continues to be demonized. Follow the money...
    - adamsmith143 5y ago
      The last plant built in the US was the Watts Bar Unit 2, estimated cost around 6.1B USD for ~1.1 GW of output and construction took over 40 years. Average cost for Solar is something like 2-3$/watt. Follow the money indeed.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Solara failed purely because cost for the competition dropped well below theirs. It was an honest business failure, like many others; and ultimately good news for the rest of us. They burned through $1/2 billion. Nukes always burn much more; US subsidies are more, every year, for equal value in the end. Harping on Solara only calls attention to nukes' overwhelmingly worse performance. Nukes are "demonized" because they cost overwhelming more than alternatives.
  - adamsmith143 5y ago
    Commercially usually means they are actually outputting things. Lftrs have been hyped since like 2010 and I don't think any new molten salt reactor has made any net power on the grid since then. From what I could tell of the companies you listed not a single one even has a demo reactor and the earliest ones are slated for years from now.

ortusdux 5y ago

I've seen non-photovoltaic solar collectors that heat molten salt and then store it for off-peak use. I wonder if they could be hybridized with small modular MSRs.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Those are no longer cost competitive with PV and batteries.
- DennisP 5y ago
  But a lot of that is the cost of concentrated solar. On the PV side, batteries are not known for being especially cheap. Lazard puts the wholesale cost of PV plus four hours storage at 8 to 14 cents/kWh, as of 2020: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... And four hours storage is just what you need to shift peak daytime sun to peak evening demand. You need more to get through a windless night. To cover reduced supply on cloudy winter days you need some combination of overcapacity and long-duration storage, which typically involves some kind of turbine.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Batteries are the most expensive storage. Storage cost is plummeting even faster than solar or wind ever did.

adamsmith143 5y ago

>Molten salt reactors in particular are supposed to be able to adjust to demand within a minute or so. Nobody is making these commercially and the SMR companies out there are making standard pressurized water reactors afaik.

DennisP 5y ago
A bunch of companies are developing molten salt reactors commercially, including Terrestrial Energy, Moltex, Elysium, Seaborg, Thorcon, and Terrapower.
- EricE 5y ago
  And if a fraction of the funding that was dumped on frivolous "renewables" in the last 20 years (Solara? Ha - tip of the iceberg for waste!) was instead spent on new reactor designs we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Which is probably why nuclear continues to be demonized. Follow the money...
  - adamsmith143 5y ago
    The last plant built in the US was the Watts Bar Unit 2, estimated cost around 6.1B USD for ~1.1 GW of output and construction took over 40 years. Average cost for Solar is something like 2-3$/watt. Follow the money indeed.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Solara failed purely because cost for the competition dropped well below theirs. It was an honest business failure, like many others; and ultimately good news for the rest of us. They burned through $1/2 billion. Nukes always burn much more; US subsidies are more, every year, for equal value in the end. Harping on Solara only calls attention to nukes' overwhelmingly worse performance. Nukes are "demonized" because they cost overwhelming more than alternatives.
- adamsmith143 5y ago
  Commercially usually means they are actually outputting things. Lftrs have been hyped since like 2010 and I don't think any new molten salt reactor has made any net power on the grid since then. From what I could tell of the companies you listed not a single one even has a demo reactor and the earliest ones are slated for years from now.