Are Big Tech's Nuclear Construction Deals a Tipping Point for Small Modular Reactors? (aol.com) 71
Fortune reports on "a watershed moment" in American's nuclear power industry:
In January, Meta partnered with Gates' TerraPower and Sam Altman-backed Oklo to develop about 4 gigawatts of combined SMR projects — enough to power almost 3 million homes — for "clean, reliable energy" both for Meta's planned Prometheus AI mega campus in Ohio and beyond. Analysts see Meta as the start of more Big Tech nuclear construction deals — not just agreements with existing plants or restarts such as the now-Microsoft-backed Three Mile Island. "That was the first shot across the bow," said Dan Ives, head of tech research for Wedbush Securities, of the Meta deals. "I would be shocked if every Big Tech company doesn't make some play on nuclear in 2026, whether a strategic partnership or acquisitions."
Ives pointed out there are more data centers under construction than there are active data centers in the U.S. "I believe clean energy around nuclear is going to be the answer," he said. "I think 2030 is the key threshold to hit some sort of scale and begin the next nuclear era in the United States." Smaller SMR reactors can be built in as little as three years instead of the decade required for traditional large reactors. And they can be expanded, one or two modular reactors at a time, to meet increasingly greater energy demand from 'hyperscalers,' the companies that build and operate data centers. "There's major risk if nuclear doesn't happen," Oklo chairman and CEO Jacob DeWitte told Fortune, citing the need for emission-free power and consistent baseload electricity to meet skyrocketing demand. "The hyperscalers, as the ultimate consumers of power are, are looking at the space and seeing that the market is real. They can play a major role in helping make that happen," DeWitte said, speaking in his fast-talking, Silicon Valley startup mode.
Ives pointed out there are more data centers under construction than there are active data centers in the U.S. "I believe clean energy around nuclear is going to be the answer," he said. "I think 2030 is the key threshold to hit some sort of scale and begin the next nuclear era in the United States." Smaller SMR reactors can be built in as little as three years instead of the decade required for traditional large reactors. And they can be expanded, one or two modular reactors at a time, to meet increasingly greater energy demand from 'hyperscalers,' the companies that build and operate data centers. "There's major risk if nuclear doesn't happen," Oklo chairman and CEO Jacob DeWitte told Fortune, citing the need for emission-free power and consistent baseload electricity to meet skyrocketing demand. "The hyperscalers, as the ultimate consumers of power are, are looking at the space and seeing that the market is real. They can play a major role in helping make that happen," DeWitte said, speaking in his fast-talking, Silicon Valley startup mode.
Watershed moment will be deployment. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are currently exactly two SMRs in operation in the world, neither in the US, and there are over 100 designs in the air. Contracts are not success, deploying actual working reactors is success.
Re: Watershed moment will be deployment. (Score:3)
Another concern is also how fuel efficient they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Deploying financially viable actual working reactors that deliver on the promised benefits would be the bar for success in my eyes. Ie not just a pilot, but a scaled program that delivers energy at a price that can compete with solar. I'll believe it when I see it.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to lower the bar a little. To be a true comparison, it needs to be when it compete against solar PLUS enough battery that can provide energy thru the night too. So if the SMR can provide 500MWh (which it will do continuously), then the size of the solar array + batteries needs to be able to give 500MWh for 24 hours in a row. I'll be charitable and not require enough extra to deal with cloudy days too, but so many people leave out the battery part when doing cost analysis/comparison. Otherwise, I ag
Re: (Score:2)
If we're going to get into the weeds of the comparison, then you have to think about the system service each setup is intended to provide to make the correct comparison. That's not an identical hourly output profile.
A 500MW SMR provides about 4TWh per annum of low-carbon energy plus firm capacity most of the time. It still goes offline for planned and unplanned maintenance, so it's not perfectly continuous and it has limited ramping. This is all assuming it does what it says it will do, of course. It's also
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That is not how an energy mix works. And, incidentally, nuclear has never achieved 100% uptime and worse, has a tendency to SCRAM without warning. As a consequence, the redundant generation capacities for nuclear need to be much higher than for any other energy generation tech.
If we use self-redundancy (which is stupid, but what you did), nuclear needs to be run at about 150% capacity and these all need to be up with spinning turbines at all times, because nuclear is excessively slow to react.
Re: (Score:1)
because nuclear is excessively slow to react.
That depends on the reactor, and the over all design of plant.
In general they are not much slower than coal plants.
Re: (Score:2)
In specific, commercial SMRs do not exist. Therefore their response time is best measured in years right now. The only alleged commercially viable SMR design to receive type approval was deemed unprofitable by the designers and they declined to build it, i.e. they admitted it's not commercially viable. Since we live under capitalism, this is the only thing that really matters (even though there are lots of other considerations which should be more important) and it says no.
Re: (Score:2)
We may eventually get some SMRs. But this will take a long time, i.e. 50 years or more. The material sciences are just not there. The experience is not there and nuclear power operates unter massively different conditions that most industrial installations. And the uranium supply is surprisingly limited if you need to be economically viable. That may eventually change, but whether it will ever be able to catch up to renewables commercially is really unclear. The problem is that nuclear power is a commercial
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, compare to coal. Just shows you have no clue. Coal is not used for regulation energy. Same as nuclear.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course it is.
You are mixing things up.
Regulation is called Balancing. For that you only use coal etc. in limited ways.
The rest is called "load following", and for that you can use coal, and in restricted sense nuclear, quite fine.
I worked decades in the energy industry. So calling me "no clue" is kind of idiotic.
Most countries do not have that "flat" curve with a small peak at the end of the day.
Germany for example has a Sombrero hat curve. Power is rising slowly from 5:00 in the morning and peaks around
Re: (Score:3)
because nuclear is excessively slow to react.
If you yank out the control rods, you can get a much faster react time.
Re: Watershed moment will be deployment. (Score:3)
That is not a good comparison though. You are asking solar and batteries to replicate what nuclear is good at. So nuclear will look good.
A better comparison would be to ask solar and SMR to produce power to meet demand over a 24hr period, where demand is highly variable. Both need significant storage to achieve this.
Re: (Score:3)
No reactor works continuously. 90% on, 10% off is reasonable for a well maintained one, not extended too far beyond its design lifetime. Lower for SMRs because they require more frequent fuelling, and are at this stage experimental.
You also seem to be confusing units. MWh is a measure of energy over time. An SMR is typically 100MW or less.
It's also a pointless comparison because no grid operates with one SMR or one solar farm + battery. They are all interconnected, all have multiple sources of energy, and a
Re: Watershed moment will be deployment. (Score:2)
I think it may be you who is confused about units. MW are power, that is energy per time. MWh is a unit of energy. 1 MWh = 3.6 GJ.
Re: (Score:1)
You only leave out the "battery part" in your cost analysis: when you do not need/want batteries.
For example, you have a grid connection, and take energy from the grid when there is no sun.
That was a no brainer, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Watershed moment will be deployment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Both of these are not suitable as prototypes or to validate the concept. The Russians have a repurposed submarine reactor, which is not a civilian design and they are not talking about cost at all. The Chinese have a highly experimental THTR intended to validate the tech again after the Germans wrecked all 3 (!) of the prototypes. The Chinese are using the old German patents and hope that advances in materials sciences and other engineering disciplines will make the design viable, and if so, they plan regular sized reactors based on it. The Chinese are also not talking about cost or at least not credibly so.
Hence for this supposed SMR "revolution" to happen soon, exactly zero working prototypes exist. That means it has a snowball's chance in hell of happening any sooner than in 20 years and that is only if everything works fine. Which it never has done with nuclear power and will not do so for SMRs either.
Re: (Score:1)
I think we only had two.
One at least was a "pebble bed" reactor. The stupid idea was to have balls made from graphite, containing Thorium. When the reactor got hot, the graphite got gluey and sticky like molten rubber. So the bice pile of pebbles which was considered to slowly move to an exit and get replenished from the top, became a (nearly) solid pile of fuel. That was the first reactor.
I mean:
a) that was a complete no brainer that this would happen, no idea why nuclear physicists do not think about "nor
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. I thought there was a 70MW prototype as well. Seems I am mistaken. There was another gas-cooled reactor (The 100MW "Niederaichbach Nuclear Power Plant", shut down permanently after only 1 year of operation), that probably is the source of my confusion.
Incidentally, both the AVR Reactor and the THTR-300 were pebble-bed types and China is now trying one with better materials and technology as well, based on the German patents. What did kill the THTR-300 was basically criminal mistakes by the operator tha
Re: (Score:1)
So no, the THTR design idea is not broken.
The idea we followed in Germany is broken.
More modern designs put the fuel/graphite balls into a glass or ceramic shell.
Interesting read, I never knew about the release of radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess...
- They will take much longer to build than predicted
- The electricity will cost much more than predicted
- They still won't know what to do with the nuclear waste
I don't know why these bozos don't just build solar, wind and battery systems which are proven to be the cheapest electricity and can be built much faster.
Re: (Score:2)
There are currently exactly two SMRs in operation in the world, neither in the US, and there are over 100 designs in the air. Contracts are not success, deploying actual working reactors is success.
To what extend do you consider the many hundreds of reactors operated by navies around the world "Small Modular Reactors"? I would agree that there aren't many civilian versions out there yet, but there's an awful lot of experience out there with the things in the "cost isn't really a priority" design space.
Oh yeah, all kinds of nuke power in 4 years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only are they going to build them, they're also building a nuke recycling plant, to get rid of all the tons of used fuel rods that have been collecting at nuke plants everywhere. All reactors have tons of used rods in cooling ponds, because we canceled the storage in nevada.
So, expect clouds of radioactive iodine and krypton gasses crossing the us everytime they dissolve a new batch. Expect the contamination to go back to the ww2 levels, in the TN valley.
I have a fallout shelter, and rad detection gear,
Reaction to the Costs of the Data Centers (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of the big tech companies want to build huge, electrical intensive computing centers.
There has been a significant reaction to this because of the cost of electricity. In some areas, the new electrical demand can drive up the cost for everyone in the area, not just the new centers.
They want to negate this issue, so they need quick, reliable, energy. They have concerns about solar and wind being unreliable, fossil fuels destroying the world. That leaves geothermal which only works reliably in very rare locations, hydro which has fish issues (and the total transformation of the areas near dams), and nuclear.
When logical people look at well designed nuclear, they realize that it is far less toxic than fossil fuels, has minimal environmental dangers, and that the main issues are reputation.
Modern, newer designs entice them. They have the issue of being untested, but the 'move fast and break things' motto of Big Tech does not fear the untested. Whether or not this is a good idea for small nuclear technology as opposed to the software/chip business, well I do not know - and neither do they.
It is easy to understand why these aggressive tech bros want the nukes. But I would not want to live near their first facilities. Hopefully they will be smart enough to build them far enough from population centers.
Hype train (Score:2)
Next big craze (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Maybe you've not be watching? Trump tends to steam-roll regulations. And Congress is doing nothing to stop him. That's why everyone thinks this is right moment to push stupid contaminating uneconomic ideas.
If any do get off the ground, you can be sure they'll leave a legacy of toxic waste and a future cleanup burden. Oh, and our electricity bills will go even higher to pay for it all.
Re: (Score:2)
The nuclear regulations are of a special kind, though, as they are based in the deep, irrational, animalistic fear of the trumpistani elites of "proliferation", that is, of someone else obtaining the bomb.
Reprocessing has been a no-no for many decades precisely because it is seen as a precursor to developing nuclear capability. Hard to believe that the epitome of this very elite, the current president, thinks differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if all you get from reprocessing is a weapon then that's worse than just burying it. I wouldn't think that'd be any sort of show stopper in current climate though. Hence the dumbass push for defunct nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't what you actually get that is important, it is what you can learn to get that makes all of it bad in the eyes of the people who control the trumpistan. Don't take my word for it, look it up - the push for a total reprocessing ban has had only one consistent source through the years and it is the US.
Nobody fears the nuclear bomb more than the people who ordered it used to see what it does to unprotected civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the weapons are bad. If that's the end result then the ban is sensible. The reactors certainly aren't any good in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't blocked due to a value judgement. It is blocked due to fear of other people being able to respond in kind to aggression.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said at the start, regulations mean nothing to Trump. Hence the push for stupidity is on.
Re: Next big craze (Score:2)
Trump doesn't understand regulations, but he feels fear well.
E.g. he dropped Ukraine support because putin threatened him with nukes and the pee tape. E.g. he is fearful of democratic institutions, so he's dismantling them as fast as he can. E.g. he developed bone spurs to avoid the draft and thinks that was "smart".
Therefore he is unlikely to drop any regulation that is seen as a potential nuclear risk.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Trump hates the EU politically, just like he hates Congress. He's a wannabe dictator, he likes dictators.
He doesn't fear exposure, nor even messing up for that matter, because no-one holds him to account anyway. Hell, the courts have even ruled he can't be liable for any official decisions. Only Congress can decide. And Congress has never gone beyond lameness.
He'll smash any regulation that he sees as reducing profits for either himself or corporate buddies. And since nukes tend to be money holes
Re: Next big craze (Score:2)
He doesn't fear
[Citation needed]. trump is the most cowardly PoS to have graced the Whitehouse for the past several decades, quite likely more. He fears everything, death most of all. Therefore he won't touch the regulatory regime of reprocessing at all, no matter what his power-hungry "AI" overlords tell him.
But I'm repeating myself, so I'll bow out of any further attempts to clear your confused thoughts on that matter.
Betteridge in action (Score:3)
SMR will not happen in the US. Nuscale's UAMPS project in Utah is an case study in why such hopes are futile. Costs escalate as regulators embiggen requirements around new designs, and pressure groups spawn like weeds to delay everything until the financing collapses.
What would it take? Two things: 1.) Deep pockets that can fully finance the project without bonds and shifting interest rates, all up front. 2.) Sincere and unwavering legislative support, including legal exceptions from state and federal regulatory sabotage and pressure group legal attacks.
The former is conceivable, but we're talking about someone committing $10B+ for ten or more years, and that's hard for anyone, even Big Tech monsters: Yes, there are trillion dollar companies, but like all such oversimplifications, they aren't so liquid they can easily just sink that kind of liquidity into a nuclear project. That's why they're grifting around, trying to wheedle deals with state government and regional utilities.
The latter is fiction: executive orders and other half measures are not sufficient. What would be sufficient is a bill, passed by the Federal government, signed by a president, capable of surviving challenges in front of SCOTUS, because it will go that far. That model has happened in the US in the past: TVA etc. Today, our leaders are balkanized around extreme pressure groups and vocal minorities, and no rationality is apparent any longer. The US isn't a place where things like this are feasible today.
Re: (Score:3)
SMRs will never happen on a large scale because they just aren't commercially viable. They have most of the downsides of full size reactors, plus some new ones, and the cost savings from serial production don't come anywhere close to offsetting them.
Renewables continue to get cheaper, are mature technology, and are being deployed on a massive scale even as SMRs try to work towards first prototypes 5-10 years from now. If they ever deliver a viable design, it will be completely redundant by the time they com
ANOTHER "tipping point"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do all the people who use to repeatedly write about "disruptors" now repeatedly write about "tipping points"?
Re: (Score:2)
This is either written by AI or someone who doesn't understand what a "tipping point" is. A tipping point is where a change causes a big impact on an industry. You need to have an industry first to have a tipping point. With no commercially viable SMRs in operation beyond two pilot plant AI is as much of a "tipping point" for SMRs as someone donating money to cancer research is a "tipping point" in curing cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as I recall... we used to see a LOT of blogs/articles/stories about "disruptors" which were nothing of the kind... and that was before AI was a thing. So I don't think we can blame this particular trend on AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh disruptors is not in question here. That is a word that describes a potential for someone to disrupt something. Someone can legitimately be labelled a potential disruptor while failing at that task.
Tipping point on the other hand describes a current situation. You need to have an industry before it can be tipped. In much the same way the SMR industry can't be disrupted right now, but it would be legit to call the people trying to build the SMR industry disruptors. God knows if they ever get it off the gr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that we're on the cusp.
Thoughts (Score:2)
"believe clean energy around nuclear is going to be the answer"...
Yeah, that''s what the AIs in The Matrix said just before turning us into pod people.
The sun is the only one clean energy source - the rest are dirty to varying degrees. Nuclear is definitely not clean.
Someone well qualified in nuclear fuel chemistry that I know doesnt think SMRs are going to take off. He says people have been talking about them for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the sun isn't clean! It gives people cancer! But since it's going to be there regardless, and you can get less cancer by getting shade in the midday, and you can get shade from solar panels... solar wins again.
Re: Thoughts (Score:2)
Haha, true. I forgot about skin cancer. Though that's mostly caused by (a) ozone destruction and (b) people biologically adapted to higher latitudes migrating to lower latitudes and (c) some other factors causing an uptick in cancer rates (nuclear testing?)
Skin exposure to sunlight is essential for health.
Re: (Score:1)
Skin exposure to sunlight is essential for health
I guess that is why no one living under fierce sun is doing it.
If it was to happen, it would have by now (Score:2)
No, those are a message to investors (Score:2)
Essentially Big-"Tech" is putting a bit of money into them (typically a tiny amount) since that means they "believe" that they will need high amounts of power in the following years. That way they they believe that the current AI-bubble is not a bubble and that it's sustainable.
In reality those contracts are often for the power produced from those generators. So when the AI bubble will burst, they will no longer need that power. Alternatively (or in combination) those SMRs will never reach a point where the
No (Score:3)
Pleas stop the deranged claims. The only "tipping point" for SMRs will be when (1) an actual SMRs prototype runs reliable for a few years and (2) the cost of manufacturing and running it are actually competitive. That will not happen anytime soon and may never happen. Before both points are reached, the whole thing is wishful thinking. Not the first time and not uncommon with the nuclear idiots. They like to grossly lie about actual costs and then take a massive amount of money from the taxpayer.
Oh, and those competitive costs need to include full insurance. Anything else would be a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and those competitive costs need to include full insurance. Anything else would be a lie.
All generation types should include that from source to disposal...
Re: (Score:2)
" (1) an actual SMRs prototype runs reliable for a few years"
"Oh, and those competitive costs need to include full insurance."
Those insurance companies will need those years of data to price any insurance appropriately, otherwise it's anybody's WAG. Sort of a Catch-22.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, I am talking about the insurance for the commercialized final product. The prototype obviously does not have to be competitive. Prototypes basically never are and cannot be. No Catch-22 here.
Re: (Score:2)
Shooting something from the earth into the sun needs a lot of fuel because the rocket starts off with the rotational speed of the earth.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't care when it gets there or how long it takes in general, the only big problem is getting it off of the planet.
If you were dealing with a cargo where you didn't care about the inertial shock, maybe a space gun would be viable. You could also combine it with a MLA if you wanted, why not.
But a better plan is to just not create high-level waste in the first place, and to come up with ways to recycle all of your non-biodegradable waste, and to produce less of that to start with as well of course. As
Maybe ... (Score:2)
How much does it really cost? that is the fundamental question, what is the cost to actually plan, build, operate, decommission?
What is the added cost of compliance? I think many companies are now looking at this because perhaps most of the "cost" is not actual cost but due to many rules and regulations and these costs can be negotiated away, lobbied away, and just removed.
In america? No. (Score:2)
Solar with batteries is already so much more reliable and cheaper than nuclear that nobody is going to build nuclear reactors. There might be a few scams but they won't result in a finished working reactor.
The only places nuclear makes sense is where there is very little land like say Japan. Everywhere else is not going to want to deal with the extra cost and maintenance and safety problems.
Cost control is key (Score:2)
May not be SMR... but there are others... (Score:2)
There are reactor designs out there... may not be SMR... but they have promise. TRIGA designs come to mind. No, these need some scaling up to do, but they have technologies that help with safety, such as the fuel rods automatically slowing down fission when they get hot, ensuring that the loss of coolant or a control rod [youtube.com] doesn't mean a meltdown.
It would be interesting to see the TRIGA design scaled up. 1.1 MW isn't that much relatively... but would go long ways in running a farm.
"Ives", you say ? (Score:2)
Yep, that Ive's way.