4 ms·

"SMR" has been tried time and time again by both established players and startups since the 50s. It is what the industry tend to swing to when large scale desig

"SMR" has been tried time and time again by both established players and startups since the 50s. It is what the industry tend to swing to when large scale designs once again prove too expensive. They've never panned out. > The Forgotten History of Small Nuclear Reactors > Economics killed small nuclear power plants in the past—and probably will keep doing so https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors-2650272535 https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/the-forgotten-history-of-small...

credit_guy 3y ago
I read that article, and it's not that convincing. The article goes over some attempts made in the '50s and '60s. And that's it, the conclusion is SMRs can't work now. It completely ignores that naval nuclear reactors are nothing else but SMRs and they work just fine, and are not expensive compared to civilian reactors. Of course, the article was published in 2015, so it could not predict that China would build and put in operation two fourth generation SMRs in 2023[1]. And that they would state they intend to build 6 more that would drive a single 650 MW turbine. [1] https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschinas-htr-pm-demonstration-project-enters-commercial-operation-11354820 https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschinas-htr-pm-demonstra...
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  Naval nuclear reactors have the world's least price sensitive customers, run on highly enriched uranium, scuttling the vessel is deemed a safe outcome and military staffing is completely different from civilian. That does not match reality on land. China is barely building nuclear anymore. China added more wind and solar the past nine months than all of its nuclear reactors under construction will provide. Yes, that includes capacity factor. https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 You also do the common misstake of always talking about future nuclear plans. They will be the savior, as long as the costs are marketing material and not real. Because we can't look at the existing batch of botched nuclear construction the past 20 years in the west, that would spoil the rosy image. Better trust our future to Powerpoint reactors. Rather than competitors delivering day in and day out.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    > China is barely building nuclear anymore. That's a funny way to look at things. China built 40 GW worth of nuclear power plants in the last decade [1], which matches the best decade of France, and almost matches the best decade of the US. In 2022 they started work on 5 reactors (GW-sized), 2 more than the rest of the world combined. [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil... [2] https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/0156a8d7-01c6-42d9-97be-3f04f34cb8fa/performance-report-2023-final.pdf.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/0156a8d7-01c6-42d9-97be-3...
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    They’ve also built way more coal plants and nuclear plants than anyone else. What’s your point? China is a massive country with massive electricity needs (they still use half per capita that the west does and they’re trying to close that gap). Nuclear and coal is the plan for baseload because solar/wind doesn’t cut it for that use (coal I believe is intended to be a mechanism of last resort intended to never be run as long as other alternatives are available although I suspect reality will not be so kind).
  - philwelch 3y ago
    > Naval nuclear reactors have the world's least price sensitive customers, run on highly enriched uranium, scuttling the vessel is deemed a safe outcome and military staffing is completely different from civilian. That does not match reality on land. Congress is, in fact, very price sensitive about military procurement, and there are significantly greater engineering challenges in ship construction than in terrestrial construction. The difference is that the scale and regulatory environment around building naval ships is not completely dysfunctional.

credit_guy 3y ago

I read that article, and it's not that convincing. The article goes over some attempts made in the '50s and '60s. And that's it, the conclusion is SMRs can't work now. It completely ignores that naval nuclear reactors are nothing else but SMRs and they work just fine, and are not expensive compared to civilian reactors. Of course, the article was published in 2015, so it could not predict that China would build and put in operation two fourth generation SMRs in 2023[1]. And that they would state they intend to build 6 more that would drive a single 650 MW turbine. [1] https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschinas-htr-pm-demonstration-project-enters-commercial-operation-11354820 https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschinas-htr-pm-demonstra...

ViewTrick1002 3y ago
Naval nuclear reactors have the world's least price sensitive customers, run on highly enriched uranium, scuttling the vessel is deemed a safe outcome and military staffing is completely different from civilian. That does not match reality on land. China is barely building nuclear anymore. China added more wind and solar the past nine months than all of its nuclear reactors under construction will provide. Yes, that includes capacity factor. https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 You also do the common misstake of always talking about future nuclear plans. They will be the savior, as long as the costs are marketing material and not real. Because we can't look at the existing batch of botched nuclear construction the past 20 years in the west, that would spoil the rosy image. Better trust our future to Powerpoint reactors. Rather than competitors delivering day in and day out.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > China is barely building nuclear anymore. That's a funny way to look at things. China built 40 GW worth of nuclear power plants in the last decade [1], which matches the best decade of France, and almost matches the best decade of the US. In 2022 they started work on 5 reactors (GW-sized), 2 more than the rest of the world combined. [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil... [2] https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/0156a8d7-01c6-42d9-97be-3f04f34cb8fa/performance-report-2023-final.pdf.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/0156a8d7-01c6-42d9-97be-3...
- vlovich123 3y ago
  They’ve also built way more coal plants and nuclear plants than anyone else. What’s your point? China is a massive country with massive electricity needs (they still use half per capita that the west does and they’re trying to close that gap). Nuclear and coal is the plan for baseload because solar/wind doesn’t cut it for that use (coal I believe is intended to be a mechanism of last resort intended to never be run as long as other alternatives are available although I suspect reality will not be so kind).
- philwelch 3y ago
  > Naval nuclear reactors have the world's least price sensitive customers, run on highly enriched uranium, scuttling the vessel is deemed a safe outcome and military staffing is completely different from civilian. That does not match reality on land. Congress is, in fact, very price sensitive about military procurement, and there are significantly greater engineering challenges in ship construction than in terrestrial construction. The difference is that the scale and regulatory environment around building naval ships is not completely dysfunctional.