The Case Against Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (cnn.com) 146
Small modular nuclear reactors (or SMRs) are touted as "cheaper, safer, faster to build and easier to finance" than conventional nuclear reactors, reports CNN. Amazon has invested in X-Energy, and earlier this month, Meta announced a deal with Oklo, and in Michigan last month, Holtec began the long formal licensing process for two SMRs with America's Nuclear Regulatory Commission next to a nuclear plant it hopes to reactive. (And in 2024, California-based Kairos Power broke ground in Tennessee on a SMR "demo" reactor.)
But "The reality, as ever, is likely to be messier and experts are sounding notes of caution..." All the arguments in favor of SMRs overlook a fundamental issue, said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists: They are too expensive. Despite all the money swilling around the sector, "it's still not enough," he told CNN. Nuclear power cannot compete on cost with alternatives, both fossil fuels and increasingly renewable energy, he said."
Some SMRs also have an issue with fuel. The more unconventional designs, those cooled by salt or gas, often require a special type of fuel called high-assay low-enriched uranium, known as HALEU (pronounced hay-loo). The amounts available are limited and the supply chain has been dominated by Russia, despite efforts to build up a domestic supply. It's a major risk, said Nick Touran [a nuclear engineer and independent consultant]. The biggest challenge nuclear has is competing with natural gas, he said, a "luxury, super expensive fuel may not be the best way." There is still stigma around nuclear waste, too. SMR companies say smaller reactors mean less nuclear waste, but 2022 research from Stanford University suggested some SMRs could actually generate more waste, in part because they are less fuel efficient...
As companies race to prove SMRs can meet the hype, experts appear to be divided in their thinking. For some, SMRs are an expensive — and potentially dangerous — distraction, with timelines that stretch so far into the future they cannot be a genuine answer to soaring needs for clean power right now.
Nuclear engineering/consultant Touran told CNN the small reactors are "a technological solution to a financial problem. No venture capitalists can say, like, 'oh, sure, we'll build a $30 billion plant.' But, if you're down into hundreds of millions, maybe they can do it."
But "The reality, as ever, is likely to be messier and experts are sounding notes of caution..." All the arguments in favor of SMRs overlook a fundamental issue, said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists: They are too expensive. Despite all the money swilling around the sector, "it's still not enough," he told CNN. Nuclear power cannot compete on cost with alternatives, both fossil fuels and increasingly renewable energy, he said."
Some SMRs also have an issue with fuel. The more unconventional designs, those cooled by salt or gas, often require a special type of fuel called high-assay low-enriched uranium, known as HALEU (pronounced hay-loo). The amounts available are limited and the supply chain has been dominated by Russia, despite efforts to build up a domestic supply. It's a major risk, said Nick Touran [a nuclear engineer and independent consultant]. The biggest challenge nuclear has is competing with natural gas, he said, a "luxury, super expensive fuel may not be the best way." There is still stigma around nuclear waste, too. SMR companies say smaller reactors mean less nuclear waste, but 2022 research from Stanford University suggested some SMRs could actually generate more waste, in part because they are less fuel efficient...
As companies race to prove SMRs can meet the hype, experts appear to be divided in their thinking. For some, SMRs are an expensive — and potentially dangerous — distraction, with timelines that stretch so far into the future they cannot be a genuine answer to soaring needs for clean power right now.
Nuclear engineering/consultant Touran told CNN the small reactors are "a technological solution to a financial problem. No venture capitalists can say, like, 'oh, sure, we'll build a $30 billion plant.' But, if you're down into hundreds of millions, maybe they can do it."
Smells fishy to me (Score:2, Insightful)
Specifically this line:
"Nuclear power cannot compete on cost with alternatives, both fossil fuels and increasingly renewable energy, he said."
This is a massive mis-statement, if not a lie by omission. nuclear power is known for one thing - having lower operational costs.
It is 'expensive' for one reason - government regulations/paper work. Despite causing far less deaths than coal - even if you restrict coal deaths to just radioactive related deaths, Nuclear has far more regulations than coal. Civilians a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nuclear Power is inherently CHEAPER than fossil fuels, not more expensive.
No. It is not. You are apparently going for a BIG LIE here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie). Makes you a fundamentally bad person.
Re:Smells fishy to me (Score:4, Informative)
Also nice is the invalid comparison. Because what people _actually_ are building is renewables. And there nuclear reveals that it is nothing but a fundamentally bad idea.
Re:Smells fishy to me (Score:5, Informative)
People are building "renewables" because they're subsidized.
So is nuclear. https://www.gao.gov/products/e... [gao.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
People are building "renewables" because they're subsidized.
In general they are not subsidized.
And bottom line that does not matter anyway. Renewables, hence the name, do not need fuel. So except for maintenance, they have no running costs.
If I put up a solar or wind plant in ether Germany or Thailand: I do not get any subsidized, unless YOU jump up and gift me some. Need my paypal? You are welcome!
Re:Smells fishy to me (Score:4, Interesting)
People are building "renewables" because they're subsidized.
Not a single power plant in the world has been built without subsidy. None what so ever.
People aren't building nukes because governments deliberately make them expensive.
That's just false which is plain to see in countries which don't have bureaucracy where it is still incredibly fucking expensive to build. Nuclear power plants may look simple on the surface, but they are an engineering marvel to behold and priced accordingly.
Re:Smells fishy to me (Score:4, Insightful)
People aren't building nukes because governments deliberately make them expensive.
Ours and pretty much every other government heavily regulates nuclear because of the potential for absolutely catastrophic failures. That this creates higher expenses is merely a by-product.
What you're saying makes it sound like the only reason these regulations exist is to make nuclear expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
People are building "renewables" because they're subsidized.
That's simply wrong. People build renewables, because they are decentralized and cheap. Pakistan builds renewables. Southeast Asia builds renewables. Africa builds renewables. India builds renewables. 92% of all newly commissioned electricity generation in the world in 2024 was Solar and Wind. Nuclear and gas turbines are toys for First World countries with money to spend. The rest of the world are just skipping them.
Re: Smells fishy to me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But nuclear power has basically never been built without massive amounts of government money (i.e. taxes) and never with insurance coverage while running. Tells you the quality level of the "investment" rather nicely.
As a side note: Nuclear power _can_ be insured. That it cannot be is a direct lie, often repeated. But insurers look at the actual risks, not some hallucinated numbers like "1 large accident expected in 1M years" or similar lies. Hence even only publishing the cost to insure nuclear pow
Insurable, yes or no? [Re:Smells fishy to me] (Score:4, Interesting)
As a side note: Nuclear power _can_ be insured.
I would very much like to see a citation for this statement.
The Price-Anderson Act of 1957 gives the US government fiscal responsibility for claims of personal injury and property damage caused by a commercial nuclear power plant accident, and places ceiling, on the total amount of liability each nuclear power plant licensee faced in the event of an accident, so in fact Nuclear power is not insured (unless you call the government assuming risk as being "insurance.")
I don't know how other countries cover risk.
That it cannot be is a direct lie, often repeated. But insurers look at the actual risks, not some hallucinated numbers like "1 large accident expected in 1M years" or similar lies. Hence even only publishing the cost to insure nuclear power would have killed the idea immediately.
You just said that merely publishing the cost of insurance would have killed the idea of insuring nuclear plants. Killing the idea says that nuclear plants can't be insured.
I happen to know these calculations were made. Friend of mine worked for a larger back-insurer as a risk modeler and knows. But the results were kept secret and the public got lied to.
I'm somewhat skeptical of all claims for which the support is "I heard this from a friend of a friend" and even more skeptical of ones that end "but the results are secret so you can't see them."
Re: (Score:2)
As a side note: Nuclear power _can_ be insured.
I would very much like to see a citation for this statement.
You will not. You can get that statement from anybody that understand how back-insurance works and that is willing to talk. But nobody will want that attributed to them as that may cost them their job. And the actual offers calculations back when were secret and remain secret. It is entirely possible to do, even with "unlimited" coverage. It would just have been veeeeeery expensive. Think 10...100x higher electricity prices or more.
And that is why they decided back then to lie and hide the real risk-costs a
Re: (Score:2)
And somebody with no honor or integrity has mod-points. FYI: Disagreeing is not a valid reason to down-mod things.
Re:Smells fishy to me (Score:5, Insightful)
"This is a massive mis-statement, if not a lie by omission. nuclear power is known for one thing - having lower operational costs."
But to "compete on cost" you have to consider ALL costs. The "lie by omission" here is yours.
"It is 'expensive' for one reason - government regulations/paper work."
That, and what those regulations are for. They are cheaper to make when you accept that a cost of doing business is calamities, but governments don't agree.
"Nuclear has far more regulations than coal. "
Not an argument for reducing regulations, not matter how hard it is for you to accept.
"Much of this cost is that each nuclear power plant is a 'bespoke' / unique design."
Citations please.
"The main idea of a small nuclear reactor is that it would solve the regulation/paper work by creating an 'approved' module that can then be created repeatedly without new paperwork every time."
Then why complain about regulations or claim that they are the problem?
"If this happens, then most of the expense to build a nuclear power plant will vanish, leaving only the significantly cheaper operational costs."
Then the fact that a nuclear expert feels that "this" will not "happen" should tell you something.
"Nuclear Power is inherently CHEAPER than fossil fuels, not more expensive. It is only the set up and regulatory costs that are massive. Ignoring this factor is ignoring the entire idea of small nuclear reactors."
And promoting this falsehood is ignoring reality.
Re:Smells fishy to me (Score:4, Informative)
Nuclear can't get insurance. The potential liability is so high that no commercial insurer will touch it. Governments have to back it.
Therefore the subsidies for nuclear are infinite. Unlimited, free insurance. The cost is potentially astronomical. Fukushima is on track for half a trillion Euros in direct costs, let alone the indirect ones.
The only answer I've ever got to this is "ours won't melt down, trust us bro."
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear can't get insurance. The potential liability is so high that no commercial insurer will touch it. Governments have to back it.
To be fair most of the entire process industry is uninsurable. Major companies typically self-insure and go under when something catastrophic happens.
Remember to date the biggest ever incident in the power industry in terms of lives lost, homes destroyed, and population displaced remains hydropower. Fun fact, those plants usually aren't insured either.
The only answer I've ever got to this is "ours won't melt down, trust us bro."
Insurance is insurance. It's not required for operation. What makes nuclear power unique is that in several countries the government either owns the companies
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that dam insured by the government, for the same reason that nuclear is?
Insurance absolutely is required for such a dangerous process.
Re: (Score:2)
Responses:
1) I explicitly talk about the total cost - that is my argument. I did not ignore it, the first guy did. I seperated it out and stated that the concept of a small modular nuclear reactor is that once they get approved they will NOT have all the costs of the more expensive large power plant. I did not say that argument is correct, I said it was the argument, and therefore his statement is stupid. You are ignoring my argument that directly responds to yours. I might be wrong about this but yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Smells fishy to me (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a massive mis-statement, if not a lie by omission. nuclear power is known for one thing - having lower operational costs.
I know other people have pointed out that this is a lie, but that is not the worst thing about it. It is also a deliberate attempt to misdirect from the one thing nuclear power is actually known for — when it goes wrong, it goes very wrong.
Re: Smells fishy to me (Score:2, Informative)
Nuclear power goes wrong, a few hundred square miles are uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
Fossil fuels go right and the planet is uninhabitable
Re: (Score:3)
If only there were a third option that doesn’t cause climate change and doesn’t render hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable if it goes wrong
Uninhabitable [Re: Smells fishy to me] (Score:4, Informative)
Nuclear power goes wrong, a few hundred square miles are uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
Fossil fuels go right and the planet is uninhabitable
Nobody among actual climate scientists is claiming that the planet will become uninhabitable due to climate change. They are, however, saying that the costs of climate change will be very high, possibly making equatorial regions uninhabitable, disrupting food production potentially resulting in mass starvation in some regions, and the possibility of sea level rise meaning as many as a billion people losing their homelands and becoming refugees.
But that's not the same as "the planet becoming uninhabitable."
Re: (Score:2)
It is also a deliberate attempt to misdirect from the one thing nuclear power is actually known for — when it goes wrong, it goes very wrong.
Except that is also either a deliberate attempt to misdirect or one born out of ignorance. The industry has learned a lot, and precisely zero people are ever proposing building the kinds of designs that allow things to go wrong the way they have in the past. You may as well say we should ban all new cars because the ones we built in the 1970s didn't have seatbelts and thus were expensive. Or maybe we should ban hydropower since it still holds the record as the single most destructive incident in power produ
Re: (Score:2)
Everything can go really wrong. You just need to look outside your bubble.
You need to look outside of your asshole.
Spot the scam (Score:5, Insightful)
See if you can figure it out.
It is 'expensive' for one reason - government regulations/paper work.
The game here is to pretend this is all stupid overhead, imagine hundreds of lawyers toiling away to ensure proper punctuation to satisfy humorless bureaucrats who of course know nothing and only live to make life difficult for real he-man nooklular engineers.
A serious person would ask what the alternative would be. And for many projects, that would be an insurer, who would do the exact same thing - tell you to make various modifications, or you would pay significantly higher premiums to cover the risk, or maybe not get insurance.
The problem is private insurers won't accept the risk, because the costs are potentially existential for them. So the only insurer you can find is a government, who can nullify local victims' legal claims.
But if you have a non-corrupt government, they're going to make you make it safe. Like, lots of money safe. And notice, shit still happens with these things.
So in reality, what dudebro here is asking for is the right to run take risks with other peoples' health by running potentially dangerous things for private gain, and also wants to be indemnified if he hurts them.
And it is all bundled up in a little whiny bitch about stupid regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think any reasonable government would allow a private insurer to insure nuclear, because realistically none of them have enough money to pay out the potential liabilities.
So why hasn't anyone else done it? I call BS (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like my addict nephew...I just need $500 to pay my imponding fee so I can get my car to go to the job interview, which I will get, so I can then pay you back and stop asking for money. I swear I'm clean and sober now!
SMR have one job...provide power at a competitive cost. Most aren't concerned with safety. We know those things aren't coming to our neighborhood anytime soon. It will be built in Texas or the Deep South first near some empty plot of land where they want to build an bullshit AI datacenter.
The problem remains that it's expensive. It's all about cost. SMR folks can't produce power cheap enough to be worth the investment.
You're telling me Russia doesn't want cheap power? They care about their NIMBYs too much? Same with China? All of Europe? Latin America? the rest of Asia? The Middle East? There are countless authoritarian governments that don't care about the safety of their people. Cheap power attracts LOTS of money from datacenters or just general industry. Make electricity too cheap to meter and you'll make unfathomable riches.
So if your statement was true, surely one of the other nearly 200 nations would have seen the error of our ways to extremely cheap and safe power.
So I do think China has built several reactors (Score:2)
Not because they don't have the engineering capacity to build safe nuclear reactors but because I don't think they care enough about their people or about civil rights to do so.
The problems with nuclear, besides the ones in my other post where it's just not very cost-effective if you have land, are largely social and not technical.
You can solve those social problems by simply not giving a fuck about the well-being of
From a quick google, they're not online yet. (Score:2)
The debate would be "China and Russia can produce nuclear electricity for 40% (or whatever the number ends up being) CHEAPER than the US can for natural gas."
Re:Smells fishy to me (Score:5, Informative)
This is a massive mis-statement, if not a lie by omission. nuclear power is known for one thing - having lower operational costs.
Bullshit. My go to example is the Barakah plant. Designed by South Korea and built in the UAE. No protesting greenies or red tape in that part of the world I can assure you. It was late and over budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The UAE building a nuclear power plant - note how a smart dealer doesn't use the product. See also, Norway's EV adoption.
Re: (Score:2)
The UAE building a nuclear power plant - note how a smart dealer doesn't use the product. See also, Norway's EV adoption.
Who is the "dealer" in your scenario? The UAE who did in fact build and use the product, or the South Koreans who already generate 30% of their power from nuclear? I can't figure out what you were trying to say.
Re: (Score:3)
They're two petrostates that are working particularly hard to reduce their use of fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I get what you're saying now. Yeah it helps when you have money to implement alternate policies.
Speaking of the UAE their plan is to have 44% power generated by renewables by 2050. Also it was a Saudi prince who was once quoted as saying "oil is too valuable to burn".
Re: (Score:3)
Before starting a local nuclear power industry Korea did a thorough study of the global industry and decided to basically copy US NRC regulations. They had the option to start from scratch and create a new regulatory framework but they decided to go with one that had experience behind it and known weak spots documented. I don't track that part of the industry closely any more but my understanding is that Korean nuclear operational and safety requirements are now tighter than those of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
even if you restrict coal deaths to just radioactive related deaths,
There are no radioactivity related death to coal, idiot.
nuclear power is known for one thing - having lower operational costs.
Actually no. But perhaps you have a statistics which implies it?
Not even the running costs as in refueling are lower - as in new fuel elements versus coal - you are just an idiot.
The regulation costs are not massive, it is only time where you pay some engineers to do the paper work.
Can only be a small one digit perc
Radioactivity from Coal [Re:Smells fishy to me] (Score:5, Informative)
even if you restrict coal deaths to just radioactive related deaths,
There are no radioactivity related death to coal, idiot.
In fact, coal does include a small amount of radioactive isotopes as impurities, and when you burn it, some of it goes into the air, and some of it is concentrated into the ash left behind. So, yes, coal plants produce radioactive waste. It is very low concentration, and hence a relatively small health risk per ton of coal burned, but since we burn billions of tons of coal per year, cumulatively we can conclude that yes, it had definitely killed people. We just don't know who. Not nearly as many deaths as simply the deaths from breathing the pollution caused by coal burning, though. But, nevertheless, it's not quite correct to say "There are no radioactivity related death to coal." In China, for example, an estimate is 20 deaths due to radioactivity from coal burning plants per GW-year https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
Some links:
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/ra... [epa.gov]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, coal does include a small amount of radioactive isotopes as impurities, and when you burn it,
In fact only some coal does. Unless you want to imply that the dead forests and dead dinosaurs from which our coal comes, where radioactive enough, that it is still radioactive.
some of it goes into the air, and some of it is concentrated into the ash left behind. ... that is toughly 50 years ago. Going into the ash: who the funk cares
No, it does not go into the air. Plants are scrubbed since the mid 1970s
Re: (Score:2)
There are no radioactivity related death to coal, idiot.
Only because the industry makes sure they can't be easily traced back to them [alabamareflector.com].
Re: Smells fishy to me (Score:2)
Yeah the pesky government regulations is also a reason you can't do tooth implants for $300 in my basement and instead have to pay 3K at a proper dentist.
Meanwhile in Ontario, Canada (Score:2)
https://www.opg.com/news-resou... [opg.com]
Still on time and on budget. Ontario gets the majority of electricity from nuclear, with an average cost of $0.14 Kwh, which I understand is about a third of what they pay in Germany. Ha ha.
I guess it sucks to live in places run by incompetents. We are doing just fine with nuclear power here.
Re:Smells fishy to me (Score:4, Funny)
Every SMR install will be bespoke too. It will need a geological survey, cooling pool, and all in a containment building. Of course, you need waste storage, and the whole site has to be secure and accessible by emergency services.
The cost savings from mass producing the reactors won't be large, and likely wiped out by the higher fuel/waste costs. Plus, you need several of them to equal one larger reactor.
Re: Smells fishy to me (Score:2)
Re:Smells fishy to me (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a massive mis-statement, if not a lie by omission. nuclear power is known for one thing - having lower operational costs.
Errr no, that one is a lie of omission. Nuclear has quite high operating costs when you include maintenance and safety inspections. There's a reason that existing established nuclear power plants are going out of business and rely on either government financing or Microsoft coming along with wheelbarrows of money to stay operational.
Let me repeat myself with different words just to be clear: Built plants, in some cases refinanced in ways such that no financial impact from their construction remain, are going out of business.
Nuclear is largely considered the most expensive way of producing power over it's life cycle (even ignoring decommissioning costs).
Re: (Score:2)
New nuclear plants are no more efficient than old ones. They are no less susceptible to corrosion, erosion, embrittlement and have no less requirements for maintaining storage, security, inspections, etc.
The costs of running an old reactor vs a new one are the same. The difference is that in 2025 the world is awash with far cheaper technologies. The reactors in the 60s/70s were built with the promise of "too cheap to meter" electricity which never considered how these things would be run. These days governm
Re: (Score:2)
You are convienently adding the word "operating" to costs. The Life-Cycle Cost of Energy for nuclear is way too high compared to the alternatives.
For nuclear energy to be economically viable there needs to be one or two designs that are built at scale-- but to reach that scale (say >100 SMRs per design per year) the ramp-up cost (and risk) is unworkable. The first mover advantage isn't even there because from initial funding to initial operation of the first unit you have at least 10 years of time pass
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is your comment which is misleading. First, there is capital cost in addition to operational cost. (Ironically, directly in a sentence mentioning "lie by omission".) Then, the idea that it is expensive only because of paper work is clearly wrong. Regulations certainly add cost, but this is certainly not the only reason building a nuclear power plant is expensive. Then it is also clear that "no regularization" is not an option, so it remains unclear how to fix this, as some regularization is nece
Re: (Score:2)
I like to add that there heavily regulated industries that successfully brought down cost - such as aviation. The reason nuclear industry is not able t bring down cost in general is because building plants is slow and there is also no scale in numbers, so you can not iterate and optimize. Bringing down cost also did not work under favorable political circumstances. SMR try to address exactly this, but the problem is that there are also many fixed costs so building larger plants is more efficient. The gai
Haleu? (Score:2)
"The amounts available are limited and the supply chain has been dominated by Russia"
Somehow I doubt the russians are supplying fuel for the SMRs in Nato nuclear submarines.
Re:Haleu? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The amounts available are limited and the supply chain has been dominated by Russia"
Somehow I doubt the russians are supplying fuel for the SMRs in Nato nuclear submarines.
The word "dominated" does not mean "monopolized".
You may feel free to try again with this apparently new information.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not even close to dominating it. Just another BS error in this supposed "factual" article.
Re: (Score:3)
Err yeah they are. Are you thinking of Uranium? That's not what this is about nor what SMRs run on. There is currently a single commercial supply of HALEU (what SMRs use for fuel), and that is a subsidiary of Rosatom. ONE SINGLE SUPPLIER on this globe. Just one. Uno. Ein. Or more correctly "Odin" since that one supplier is Russian.
Centrus Energy in the USA is trying to break this monopoly and has to date managed to produce 20kg from a pilot plant to the DOE. That small chunk makes them the number 2 supplier
Re: (Score:3)
As of now the Russians very much do have a monopoly. There's a single company in the world providing HALEU (the fuel for SMRs) commercially, and it's a Rosatom subsidiary.
But the USA and UK have plans in place to start production, the US has Centrus Energy which built a pilot plant that currently has produced fuck all, and the UK want a plant up and running in the next 6 years. Until either is operational on a commercial level Russia has an absolute monopoly on supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Naval reactors run on HEU because they need to be compact, have high power density, and rapidly change power level because they're being used for propulsion, and that's the most practical way to meet the requirements. We've spent decades trying to phase out use of HEU in any reactors where it isn't absolutely necessary to meet requirements (e.g. adapting research reactors to use LEU or MOx fuel, and shutting down older power reactors that used HEU). There's no way the proposed commercial SMRs will be allo
Re: (Score:2)
Naval reactors run on HEU because they need to be compact, have high power density, and rapidly change power level because they're being used for propulsion, and that's the most practical way to meet the requirements.
Just don't confuse HEU, Highly-Enriched Uranium, with HALEU, High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium.
They are different things. HEU is restricted to military systems because in principle it could be diverted for use in making a crude, but functional, nuclear bomb. HALEU would require isotope separation, which is a difficult process and easier to detect.
It is HALEU, not HEU, that is being proposed for the small plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but look at the comment I replied to [slashdot.org]:
They're the ones saying that naval reactors need the same fuel as these proposed SMRs. I was pointing out that naval reactors use different fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough.
Re: (Score:2)
HALEU is a rebranding exercise for Medium-Enriched Uranium or MEU. Regular PWR/BWR fuel enrichment is labelled Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU), about 5% or so. HALEU can be anything up to 19.7% enrichment (a nucleonic sweet spot for some reason I can sometimes understand for about five or ten seconds or so before some gal in a black suit holds a flashy chrome thing up in front of my eyes and... what was I saying?).
In a country with as much land as the USA (Score:5, Informative)
If you've got a 50 year old plant somebody already spent the money building sure whatever, it's not like you care about safety you don't live anywhere near it.
But if you're going to build a new installation to power if you need the power in a hurry you do gas turbines (hurry being relative because there's a one to two year wait on those things, which is still better than the 8 to 10 it takes for a nuclear power plant to get up and running safely here). Otherwise you build solar or if Donald Trump gets impeached and removed from office wind.
And please full love of God don't ask me what to do when the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow. It's 2025 both of those questions have answers on Google...
I've never understood why old nerds have such a boner for nuclear power. Never mind the safety problems it stopped being economical 10 or 15 years ago when wind and solar got so cheap
Re: (Score:2)
Then you pick one of the half dozen battery technologies that are cheap at scale for a large installation and call it a day.
Or better yet, wait a few months and then maybe you can pick a set of super-safe batteries with a crazy charge/discharge rate that cost the same as li-ion but last multiple centuries:
https://electrek.co/2026/01/14... [electrek.co]
Re: (Score:2)
That’s an exciting assumption but feels quite brave, tbh
Re: (Score:3)
Although JD Vance may not have a particular hateboner for wind he's still a fossil fuel industry lapdog like all the other Republicans, and they've already demonstrated a willingness and ability to pay more money for dirtier energy sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell half the people who hang out at slashdot would never question dear leader.
Re: (Score:2)
All current battery tech is terrible as well.
Indeed. Except for being proven as the most cost effective storage method, and the single best grid stabilisers on the market far outpacing the frequency control capabilities of existing nat gas peakers they are terrible. TERRIBLE.
Discourating for fusion (Score:3)
But the equipment and techniques and materials for fusion are so exotic today - still beyond know engineering capabilities in fact - it is discouraging as to it ever providing cheap energy.
Re: (Score:2)
I love the idea of fusion, and hope it could become a cheap abundant power supply, but the huge difficulty with it is that the energy from the only fusion reaction we have any hope of igniting, D-T, produces most of its energy in the form of energetic neutrons. Since neutrons are uncharged, it is difficult to turn that into actual useable power, and very difficult to shield from them. What they do accomplish is to turn everything exposed to them radioactive.
So I remain dubious.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem with fusion is the investment in it.
The International Monetary Fund estimates it costs $11 million every minute in subsidies to keep fossil fuels working.
The entire investment over the past 60 YEARS for fusion comes to around 3 days of fossil fuel investment.
We don't have to match dollar for dollar, although that would be very nice and I'm sure it would improve things a lot. Spending the equivalent of a fortnight's fossil fuel investment in fusion research (more than quadruple the total spen
It's the people, stupid (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Nuclear power has to date been proven to be the safest form of power generation. It has the lowest death toll per kWh of generation of any power source (including solar and wind) across its lifecycle and upstream supply chain.
There have been two major incidents which are both related not to cheaping out but rather to the combination of bad design (which has been corrected for in spades over the past 50 years), and stupidity of operation. In fact in a modern GenIV
Rickover's presentation (Score:2)
Admiral Rickover's presentation on paper reactors vs real reactors is as applicable today as when he first gave it in 1953.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that. An interesting read, especially given who he was and his role
Re: (Score:2)
Rickover was brilliant and had integrity. He's the sole reason the US Navy has a relatively good record with nuclear power. Now that he's dead, everything's going to go downhill.
That's actually not the point (Score:2)
The point is that Big-"Tech" is not trying to get cheap electricity. If they wanted that, they'd invest in solar, wind and storage.
The point is that they know that the AI-bubble will burst, but they cannot admit it... as that would make the AI bubble burst immediately. After the burst they will need a lot less power as the profitable bits of it are a) just a small fraction, and b) tend to not need frontier models or huge data centers.
Now by "investing" in some questionable technology, like "SMRs" or other t
stigma? (Score:3)
biggest challenge nuclear has is competing with natural gas ... there is still stigma around nuclear waste
But apparently no stigma about greenhouse gasses.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course there is. Which is why we don't build nuclear. The lifecycle cost of a nuclear plant causes them to produce 50gCO2/kWh of generation thanks to the insanely complex construction of a nuclear power plant. Yeah still less than nat gas, but far more than actual green alternatives.
Also CO2 emissions are a problem today for which we need short / immediate term solutions. If you want nuclear plants, build a time machine and go get construction started 30 years ago. As of right now *any* nuclear plant you
You have to beat the competition, period (Score:5, Interesting)
As Nancy Pelosi said, "we're capitalists"...we all still gravitate to the cheapest solution that meets standards, and were long-willing to put up with the health effects of coal, ignore the whole climate-thing, to get it cheaper. ...turned out to be $20/kWh for CAPEX, back in 2019. So that's $25/kWh in 2026.
David Roberts in Vox, in 2019, covered the MIT study that worked out just how very cheap batteries must get to make intermittent a baseload-replacement:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and... [vox.com]
Sodium-ion batteries are widely predicted to reach down to that price in a few years, less time than it takes to build a reactor. That's if Form Energy, now selling in test batches, doesn't get there first with their with "iron air" batteries.
If the batteries can be produced, and work in the field (they are so far, batteries are the hot new grid purchase for 2026), then both fossil and nuclear projects will fail to find investors. That's capitalism for you.
The only dodge around it is to appeal for government subsidy on some ideological grounds. That's what renewable champions had to do until their solution became cheaper; and it was a hard sell, let me tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you need batteries to replace *baseload*, though? You need batteries to replace peakers, not baseload. You’re looking to get through lulls, you’re looking for dispatchability, these are not what baseload is.
Batteries already beat peakers at substantially higher prices than the $20 figure you mention. I did some maths on this the other day. In the UK:
A 100MW gas peaker would have capex of about £40m, while a BESS is closer to £60m. But that £20m is dwarfed by opex, bec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean some kind of "baseload"-battery-to-"peaker"-battery charging overnight? I don't really follow. Recharging simply requires an excess of power available, ie whenever supply outstrips demand. In the UK, for sure that's overnight because that's when wind is strongest and demand lowest, but in duck-curve countries, which is most of the world, it's during the day when insolation levels are so high that batteries can be recharged alongside supplying daytime activity.
Re: (Score:2)
The term baseload has a certain meaning. Ad it seems either Americans in general or /. posters especially do not grasp the concept of baseload.
There never will be a baseload replacement. Especially not with renewables and batteries /FACEPALM. That idea does not make any sense.
Supposed you have a grid where the lowest level of consumption is 50% of peak consumption/load.
Everything below that 50% is baseload. The base of your load curve.
Historically and depending of your country still today: you had/have a bu
Cheaper? (Score:2)
Who wrote this? Literally no one on the planet other than companies wanting to sell you an SMR claims they are cheaper. They are universally considered the single most expensive way to make energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Who wrote this? Literally no one on the planet other than companies wanting to sell you an SMR claims they are cheaper.
The claim is that the first unit may be expensive, but then you can mass-produce such reactors on an assembly line, and win on cost due to economy of scale.
They are universally considered the single most expensive way to make energy.
"Universally" considered by the critics to be expensive. The advocates disagree.
I'm dubious that you can ever get the production rate up high enough to win on economy of scale. But it's not true that everybody agrees with this.
Re: (Score:2)
Not an expert in the area but they seem to have no trouble paying some expert to say whatever they want said.
I've not heard an expert confidently say they are affordable; mass production is kind of laughable - the whole market place is not large enough for what people usually consider huge gains by mass production... vendors have to produce at a high scale which requires multiples more demand than the threshold to make mass production viable - a monopoly would have the lowest threshold...
I thought the whole
Easier to fiance? (Score:2)
Let's Talk about the Case FOR Small Mod Reactors (Score:2)
First of all, let's get the first thing out of the way. There are a bunch of you who don't like or want Nuclear Reactors in any way, shape or form. Even if it was proven that Nuclear was the greatest thing since sliced bread, you'd still be against it. We have a bunch of those people in the comments and it's obvious.
Then there are those who just love nuclear to death and think that it IS the greatest thing since sliced bread. And those people are pretty obvious and the anti-nuclear people attack them becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Where and what "massive damage"? Be specific.
Re: (Score:2)
And somebody with no honor or integrity has mod-points. FYI: Disagreeing is not a valid reason to down-mod things.
Also, the truth hurts. But trying to suppress it does not work.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't posted any "truth", just your opinion. Perhaps you're just like Trump and think the 2 are equivalent. You deserved the troll mod.
Re: Climate Cultists Destroyed Nuclear Energy (Score:2)
Hey I'm close enough to those evil unamerican strawmen you mentioned and would like to suggest that on days with insufficient renewable power+reserves in batteries, people should take a day off and just chill.
It would be like the covid lockdown, but with fewer deaths and restriction to socialising.
I'll get some AI help to do the maths to compare that to adding nuclear plants when my Solar generation is a bit more productive - maybe in 3 weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't I host it in some 3rd hand Dell desktop down here in my old nan's basement?
Re: (Score:2)
The sun gives off free energy daily and we have devices that collect this energy passively and convert it to electricity. Energy free for the taking. Only a fool would turn that down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Communist and socialist climate cultists won't be satisfied until everyone works by LED light, and everything is powered by wind turbines and solar with storage.
FTFY, comrade! :D
Re: (Score:2)
But his ass IS fat...
Re: (Score:2)
Utter bullshit.
Kewl story, what about the other countries? (Score:2)
It's too bad so little progress has been made on nuclear energy plants in the last 50 years. We could have had cheap, clean energy, which would have been great to prevent global warming, especially as other countries industrialize. The protestors who were scared of the word nuclear got the US government to add so many regulations, and we're living in the future they created.
Russia has never been shy about nuclear and doesn't give a shit about their people, especially their long-term health. You're saying the same protestors spooked the Soviet Union?...Putin's Russia? What about China? Korea? Japan? You're saying ony the USA could engineer such stuff? I am ready to believe we're the best in the world, but we're far from the only technological superpower. Korea and Japan could easily pick up where we left off.
Cheap power is like the promise of generative AI. If Gener