5 ms·

Producing power by the mid 2030s? Isn't the entire point of SMRs that they are effectively a complete package and it takes very little effort to ship them out a

Producing power by the mid 2030s? Isn't the entire point of SMRs that they are effectively a complete package and it takes very little effort to ship them out and getting them to produce power. Or is this just a pipe-dream we were sold? Like, I imagined these things being compact enough to be shipped to the outskirts of towns and producing power. Afterall, they are from the same technology that was powering nuclear subs, right?

thyristan 11mo ago
The reactor is still to be developed by Rolls Royce, which is hidden in mid article. The don't have plans, not even a working prototype yet, so expect delays to at least the mid 2040s.
- magicalhippo 11mo ago
  The underpant gnome version of nuclear power? Step 1: Find and reserve site of nuclear plant Step 2: ??? Step 3: Power!
  - pfdietz 11mo ago
    One has to expect any promise of future nuclear to have the optimism turned up to 11, right to the limit of plausibility. The reality will inevitably disappoint.
    - thyristan 11mo ago
      It might not be as bad as it sounds. A few comments over someone had a preliminary permit application which described the technical details. The gist of it is, the reactor is a 500MW pressurized water reactor, Gen3/3+. Not any fancy new Gen4 thing that you usually hear about when talking about small modular reactors. No molten salt, no high temperature gas cooling, no weird moderators, no heap of crumbling carbon/uranium spheres, no liquid lead/bismuth/natrium, no thorium. So I guess it could actually be possible to keep that timetable, because it is actually old, boring and proven technology, just a little smaller and maybe more prefabricated than the usual 1GW to 1.5GW PWRs that were built in the last 4 decades.
masklinn 11mo ago
> Isn't the entire point of SMRs that they are effectively a complete package and it takes very little effort to ship them out and getting them to produce power. That's the point if / when we have actually working SMRs, with production lines set up. But the limited development of small civilian reactors before the 80s and the 3 decades freeze on most things nuclear means SMRs are only just getting out of research status (e.g. in the US only NuScale's VOYGR are currently certified).
topspin 11mo ago
This Rolls Royce design isn't all that "small." A RR SMR design is a 470MWe PWR. About half the size of a typical PWR reactor. Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 was 460MWe. Calling this an "SMR" is a stretch, likely for PR purposes. It's a rather conventional design, low enriched fuel, no exotic coolants. There is a paper on it at NRC[1]. And they've never built one, so if they get it running by the 2030's they'll be doing pretty well for a Western company. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2521/ML25212A115.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2521/ML25212A115.pdf
- testing22321 11mo ago
  “Doing pretty well” I think you mean it will be record construction time for a western company in the last few decades.
  - topspin 11mo ago
    I downplayed there, because occasionally I try to moderate my extreme cynicism. It would be miraculous, in the biblical sense of the word. Not only because it would be a technical and regulatory triumph for RR and the UK, but because it would mean this is something other than what it appears to be to me. None of this will get built. It's all fake, and after the benefits are taken, and the subsidy budgets are drained, and the various political and academic and regulatory folks have populated the requisite non-profit no-show jobs, and the professional opposition leaders have collected all the anti-nook bucks, and RR et al. have wiggled out of whatever obligations they're pretending to pursue via the holes they've already carefully arranged for themselves, these papers and headlines will be forgotten.
- masklinn 11mo ago
  > About half the size of a typical PWR reactor. Closer to a third for recent models (the French P4 reactors from the 80s were 1300, the later N4 1450~1500, the EPR is 1650). 500-ish is a relatively typical density for reactors from the mid to late 60s. Agree that it’s hardly small or modular tho.
rsynnott 11mo ago
This has kind of been the problem with SMRs; they sound great, but as you develop them, they get less and less small and modular. These are 470MWe. Coincidentally, the (very old) 'normal' MAGNOX reactors which used to operate at this site were 490MWe; in their day they were considered quite large. > Afterall, they are from the same technology that was powering nuclear subs, right? Not usually, no; that wouldn't be cost-effective.
- magicalhippo 11mo ago
  > Not usually, no; that wouldn't be cost-effective. The reason being that the nuclear sub reactors run on very enriched uranium which is very expensive and not fun if some got away.
isodev 11mo ago
That was just for the news headlines, nuclear isn't and never has been, "practical". Look on the bright side, so much taxpayer money will go into this, it's probably going to make someone richer.
mr_toad 11mo ago
I doubt you could ship one. The cores need specialised port facilities to even get them into the subs.
Earw0rm 11mo ago
Nuclear subs are a "money no object" technology, as our supposed insurance policy against Soviet invasion and/or armageddon, it's whatever it takes. That technology is so expensive, so far from economically viable, that only two countries (US & France) are even using it for aircraft carriers, despite its potential huge advantages over oil (stay at sea for years at a time without refuelling, no need for vulnerable supply ships etc.)

thyristan 11mo ago

The reactor is still to be developed by Rolls Royce, which is hidden in mid article. The don't have plans, not even a working prototype yet, so expect delays to at least the mid 2040s.

magicalhippo 11mo ago
The underpant gnome version of nuclear power? Step 1: Find and reserve site of nuclear plant Step 2: ??? Step 3: Power!
- pfdietz 11mo ago
  One has to expect any promise of future nuclear to have the optimism turned up to 11, right to the limit of plausibility. The reality will inevitably disappoint.
  - thyristan 11mo ago
    It might not be as bad as it sounds. A few comments over someone had a preliminary permit application which described the technical details. The gist of it is, the reactor is a 500MW pressurized water reactor, Gen3/3+. Not any fancy new Gen4 thing that you usually hear about when talking about small modular reactors. No molten salt, no high temperature gas cooling, no weird moderators, no heap of crumbling carbon/uranium spheres, no liquid lead/bismuth/natrium, no thorium. So I guess it could actually be possible to keep that timetable, because it is actually old, boring and proven technology, just a little smaller and maybe more prefabricated than the usual 1GW to 1.5GW PWRs that were built in the last 4 decades.

masklinn 11mo ago

> Isn't the entire point of SMRs that they are effectively a complete package and it takes very little effort to ship them out and getting them to produce power. That's the point if / when we have actually working SMRs, with production lines set up. But the limited development of small civilian reactors before the 80s and the 3 decades freeze on most things nuclear means SMRs are only just getting out of research status (e.g. in the US only NuScale's VOYGR are currently certified).

topspin 11mo ago

This Rolls Royce design isn't all that "small." A RR SMR design is a 470MWe PWR. About half the size of a typical PWR reactor. Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 was 460MWe. Calling this an "SMR" is a stretch, likely for PR purposes. It's a rather conventional design, low enriched fuel, no exotic coolants. There is a paper on it at NRC[1]. And they've never built one, so if they get it running by the 2030's they'll be doing pretty well for a Western company. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2521/ML25212A115.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2521/ML25212A115.pdf

testing22321 11mo ago
“Doing pretty well” I think you mean it will be record construction time for a western company in the last few decades.
- topspin 11mo ago
  I downplayed there, because occasionally I try to moderate my extreme cynicism. It would be miraculous, in the biblical sense of the word. Not only because it would be a technical and regulatory triumph for RR and the UK, but because it would mean this is something other than what it appears to be to me. None of this will get built. It's all fake, and after the benefits are taken, and the subsidy budgets are drained, and the various political and academic and regulatory folks have populated the requisite non-profit no-show jobs, and the professional opposition leaders have collected all the anti-nook bucks, and RR et al. have wiggled out of whatever obligations they're pretending to pursue via the holes they've already carefully arranged for themselves, these papers and headlines will be forgotten.
masklinn 11mo ago
> About half the size of a typical PWR reactor. Closer to a third for recent models (the French P4 reactors from the 80s were 1300, the later N4 1450~1500, the EPR is 1650). 500-ish is a relatively typical density for reactors from the mid to late 60s. Agree that it’s hardly small or modular tho.

rsynnott 11mo ago

This has kind of been the problem with SMRs; they sound great, but as you develop them, they get less and less small and modular. These are 470MWe. Coincidentally, the (very old) 'normal' MAGNOX reactors which used to operate at this site were 490MWe; in their day they were considered quite large. > Afterall, they are from the same technology that was powering nuclear subs, right? Not usually, no; that wouldn't be cost-effective.

magicalhippo 11mo ago
> Not usually, no; that wouldn't be cost-effective. The reason being that the nuclear sub reactors run on very enriched uranium which is very expensive and not fun if some got away.

isodev 11mo ago

That was just for the news headlines, nuclear isn't and never has been, "practical". Look on the bright side, so much taxpayer money will go into this, it's probably going to make someone richer.

mr_toad 11mo ago

I doubt you could ship one. The cores need specialised port facilities to even get them into the subs.

Earw0rm 11mo ago

Nuclear subs are a "money no object" technology, as our supposed insurance policy against Soviet invasion and/or armageddon, it's whatever it takes. That technology is so expensive, so far from economically viable, that only two countries (US & France) are even using it for aircraft carriers, despite its potential huge advantages over oil (stay at sea for years at a time without refuelling, no need for vulnerable supply ships etc.)