So the state of nuclear is pretty bad in terms of "new nuclear" costs. Lazard LCOE has it basically at 500-600% more expensive than equivalent solar/wind. Yes, baseload, yes all that.
I'm probably known as a killjoy on nuclear on here over costs, but I really do think nuclear power is the coolest thing in the world and has a place in our energy future.
We just have to figure something out with regards to a competitive design. I personally think we keep retreading solid fuel designs that have hidden structural costs and paranoia-inducing issues with the public. Mostly, the dreaded nuclear waste and its transport and the fear-inducing long half lifes.
A LFTR/liquid design can theoretically use virtually all the fuel, so there is no "waste", or at least waste transport. Breeder type reactors IIRC can also take existing long halflife waste and transmute it to usable fuel isotopes again. I know it isn't actually that simple, but it is a lot better.
I simply think that is the closed waste cycle that will get a lot of regulatory hurdles over the hump. But we are probably a decade from even a design.
Nuscale was the shining star of the current generation of "practical nuclear". This sucks, because at least it kept an iron hot.
My gripe with your comment is painting NuScale and other SMNRs as “practical” or being representative of “new nuclear”.
People with expertise in building plants have been trying to dispel the idea that SMNRs will ever manage to be cost effective.
Even if you could manage to build them cheaply, which is a massive if, that doesn’t mean that the electricity they produce will be cheap. This is a classic example of horizontal scaling, which is tried and tested way of producing an expensive final product.
The nuclear power plant isn’t the product it’s the factory, electricity is the product. The smaller your factory/process, the less scaling laws work in your favor.
Take solar for example; solar panels are not the factory, a whole solar farm is the factory. Residential rooftop solar produces more expensive electricity than commercial rooftop solar, which produces electricity more expensive than utility scale solar. The panels can be the same, it’s all the other stuff, the “balance of plant”, that has a more fixed cost which you don’t get to spread out over as many panels. Same problem for SMNRs.
I was never ever excited about NuScale, it seemed like a scam from the start. There was no basis for any of their claims, just a lot of hot air from a name with no reputation.
The BWRX-300 (300MW) build proposals in Canada at Darlington seem more realistic. Not small, not that modular, but the closest to SMR.
I'm hopeful, but not optimistic. The time to incorporate tech advancements in construction was pre-2010, or at a bare minimum to have a mere one new build in France, the US, the UK, or Finland succeed in a way that seemed like it could be replicated. Now, it's too late, and other tech has advanced too far.
Nobody is even talking about how to halve the cost of nuclear, they are only trying to make it less likely to have a build failure.
Worse than SSBJs and flying cars, the idea of proliferation of nuclear reactors will never make financial or safety sense. The wingnut shooters of transformers would love to cause a radiological incident.
Highly enriched uranium is not generally considered suitable for civilian reactors.
Plus, I've never heard anyone cite cost numbers for an A2W, but I'm not sure there's a reason it could compete on cost. Military hardware is not known for having the cheapest options, quite the contrary.
AtlasBarfed|2 years ago
https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-power-nuscale-clean-energ...
So the state of nuclear is pretty bad in terms of "new nuclear" costs. Lazard LCOE has it basically at 500-600% more expensive than equivalent solar/wind. Yes, baseload, yes all that.
I'm probably known as a killjoy on nuclear on here over costs, but I really do think nuclear power is the coolest thing in the world and has a place in our energy future.
We just have to figure something out with regards to a competitive design. I personally think we keep retreading solid fuel designs that have hidden structural costs and paranoia-inducing issues with the public. Mostly, the dreaded nuclear waste and its transport and the fear-inducing long half lifes.
A LFTR/liquid design can theoretically use virtually all the fuel, so there is no "waste", or at least waste transport. Breeder type reactors IIRC can also take existing long halflife waste and transmute it to usable fuel isotopes again. I know it isn't actually that simple, but it is a lot better.
I simply think that is the closed waste cycle that will get a lot of regulatory hurdles over the hump. But we are probably a decade from even a design.
Nuscale was the shining star of the current generation of "practical nuclear". This sucks, because at least it kept an iron hot.
_aavaa_|2 years ago
People with expertise in building plants have been trying to dispel the idea that SMNRs will ever manage to be cost effective.
Even if you could manage to build them cheaply, which is a massive if, that doesn’t mean that the electricity they produce will be cheap. This is a classic example of horizontal scaling, which is tried and tested way of producing an expensive final product.
The nuclear power plant isn’t the product it’s the factory, electricity is the product. The smaller your factory/process, the less scaling laws work in your favor.
Take solar for example; solar panels are not the factory, a whole solar farm is the factory. Residential rooftop solar produces more expensive electricity than commercial rooftop solar, which produces electricity more expensive than utility scale solar. The panels can be the same, it’s all the other stuff, the “balance of plant”, that has a more fixed cost which you don’t get to spread out over as many panels. Same problem for SMNRs.
epistasis|2 years ago
The BWRX-300 (300MW) build proposals in Canada at Darlington seem more realistic. Not small, not that modular, but the closest to SMR.
I'm hopeful, but not optimistic. The time to incorporate tech advancements in construction was pre-2010, or at a bare minimum to have a mere one new build in France, the US, the UK, or Finland succeed in a way that seemed like it could be replicated. Now, it's too late, and other tech has advanced too far.
Nobody is even talking about how to halve the cost of nuclear, they are only trying to make it less likely to have a build failure.
anon-sre-srm|2 years ago
exabrial|2 years ago
epistasis|2 years ago
Plus, I've never heard anyone cite cost numbers for an A2W, but I'm not sure there's a reason it could compete on cost. Military hardware is not known for having the cheapest options, quite the contrary.