[Philip-J-Fry]

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?

[topspin]

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

[testing22321]

“Doing pretty well”

I think you mean it will be record construction time for a western company in the last few decades.

[masklinn]

> 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.

[thyristan]

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]

The underpant gnome version of nuclear power?

Step 1: Find and reserve site of nuclear plant

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Power!

[masklinn]

> 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).

[rsynnott]

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]

> 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]

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.

[Earw0rm]

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.)

[mr_toad]

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