Can Small Modular Reactors Save Nuclear Power?

Nuclear power is the only type of electricity generation that has gotten more expensive over recent years. Wind and solar prices have fallen dramatically, and and installations increase every year. In stark contrast, new nuclear power installations have barely kept pace to replace retiring nuclear generators, and the price has gone up. In this video we’re going to talk about why that is, and whether small modular reactors are a solution to the nuclear industry’s problems. We’ll be talking with Dr Jose Reyes from NuScale Power about their small modular reactor design.
Bookmarks:
0:00 Intro
1:15 How Does Nuclear Energy Work?
2:12 Nuclear Energy Safety Concerns and Problems
3:53 Electricity Prices from Different Energy Sources
4:43 Dr Jose Reyes and NuScale Power
5:51 Small Modular Reactors
6:48 NuScale Power Safety Systems
8:52 Real Life Tests
9:26 Cost Potential of SMRs
10:33 Hydrogen Production with SMRs
11:54 High Temperature Steam Electrolysis
14:19 Flexibility of Nuclear Power
15:32 Load Following and Power Maneuvering
16:52 Summary
19:08 Rosie’s Opinions on Nuclear
20:39 Outro
Sources and links:
NuScale SMR footage courtesy of NuScale Power, LLC.
www.nuscalepower.com/
World Uranium Production - www.world-nuclear.org/informa...
Energy Production by Source - www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/...
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2021 - www.worldnuclearreport.org/IM...
Safety of Energy Sources - ourworldindata.org/safest-sou...
Electricity Prices by Source - ourworldindata.org/cheap-rene...
NuScale Power - www.nuscalepower.com
NuScale Power KZbin - / @nuscalepower6289
If you would like to help develop the Engineering with Rosie channel, you could consider joining the Patreon community, where there is a chat community (and Patreon-only Discord server) about topics covered in the videos and suggestions for future videos and production quality improvements. / engineeringwithrosie

[@_aullik]

My only really strong opinion about nuclear is that shutting of nuclear before you get rid of fossils is super stupid.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Where there aren't safety issues, I agree with you.

[@jimurrata6785]

Germany is in a pickle now... Stepping up lignite production to meet their shortfall is about the worst thing for the planet right now. Wealthy Northern/Western nations should be leading by example, not turning back on a long history of safe energy in their respective country. (IMO)

[@factnotfiction5915]

@@EngineeringwithRosie Sure, but safe operation of any power plant - nuclear - and also hydro, geothermal, wind, solar - is a given. Similarly it is a given that coal plants (without sequestration) CANNOT be operated safely - acid rain, particulates, heavy metals, radiation - all directly into the biosphere. However, were any of the German plants shut down due to safety concerns? Um, no. Every once in a while a regulator finds a safety concern, the NPP is shut down temporarily, the operated fixes it, and the plant is reopened. There was no long-term concern for any of the German NPPs - in fact Germany has one of the best safety records in the industry!

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@factnotfiction5915 Putin is a NPP country, no problem there. 90% of the world's population is in dictatorships, no problems there.????

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

90% of the world's population is in dictatorships and NPP are not part of your strong opinion. Putin and little rocket man and the Iranian leaders and ...... would be so happy 😊

[@walterpleyer261]

It keeps surprising why everbody talks about small reactors as such a novelty. Submarines have been using small reactors for decades

[@Bloated_Tony_Danza]

In the 50's and 60's there were reactors roughly the size of microwave ovens. SNAP reactors from the US, and BES-5 and TOPAZ reactors from the Soviet Union were designed for powering space satellites. The issue with these reactors was that they used 93% and 96% enriched uranium, respectively. That's weapons grade, and that level of enrichment is simply not acceptable anymore because of the risk of proliferation/diversion of fuel.

[@walterpleyer261]

@@Bloated_Tony_Danza These were not really reactors, but nuclear batteries

[@SovereignTroll]

@@walterpleyer261 Thorium is a good replacement tech and 3x cheaper than Uranium.

[@tobyw9573]

@@walterpleyer261 Why call them batteries? Batteries use chemical energy.

[@walterpleyer261]

@@tobyw9573 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

[@billheughan637]

One note of caution - LCOE/strike price costs are not all that useful for costing externalities/total costs of every energy source, whether that is gas turbines without carbon tax, renewables without backup power, or nuclear with the "nuclear waste issue" (though I disagree that this problem is of the same magnitude of the former two). Everyone likes to quote that Lazard table but sort of glosses over the bottom of the table wherein a ton of caveats are listed. They are intended for investors of a single power plant in order to do accounting (not coincidentally this is lazards business...). They are not intended to show the costs that said power plant imposes on the grid to make everything work with the reliability we expect. Or the sensitivity of each particular technologys costs to commodity prices. Et cetera. It is not for no reason that, for example, germany pays some of the highest residential electricity costs in the world before the current energy crisis and will be paying quite a bit more in part thanks to their closure of "expensive" nuclear in favour of "cheap" natural gas to take the load when the dunkelflautes/wind droughts happen, as does happen on occasion with weather. The short-term may not be that much better either for renewables, as they tend to be the most materials-heavy forms of energy, which means that impending commodity price shocks are a correspondingly bigger problem for the very impressive cost-curve progress we have seen thus far.

[@somefishhere]

Hi Rosie, great timing. I just watched a video by Matt from Undecided about small and micro. Can’t wait to listen to this on my commute!

[@lonnymo]

Hi Rosie. Nice coverage on modular reactors. Nuclear energy was my main focus in college (originally about a thousand years ago) and I had given some thought to a small reactor back then. It was nice to see a modern approach is being pursued. Looking forward to your next video!

[@chriscavanagh1347]

Thanks Rosie for an excellent update on Nuscale. If the Nuscale model or some similar was developed to be a drop in replacement for the boilers in current coal fired power stations, the nations who own those would not have wasted their investment. Small modular reactors can and should be developed to be literal boiler replacements. Modern small power stations are often made up of a series of 250MW to 600MW subunits to combine in multiples to make up the whole power station. That’s why there are invariably 1 smoke stack and 1 cooling tower per production unit. So a 250MW unit would require a cluster of 4 Nuscale units to replace the boiler. A 600MW unit would require 8 units. These numbers, times the number of coal fired power stations worldwide would make mass manufacturing, installation and post processing of the units both economic and relatively rapid to implement. Right now, 2022, power stations are being built throughout the world, in small and large countries. Most of these are still coal fired due to the relatively cheap technology and price of coal which does not include the uncosted externality of CO2 generation. The rate of power construction in fossil fuelled power stations, taken worldwide, way exceeds the installation of clean energy so the graphs are diverging. Ergo, we cannot meet net 0 carbon goals. But drop in boiler replacements would enable a rapid reversal of that trend.

[@cbgregoire9]

Great video. Really enjoy your content. Great smile. You left out concerns about Nuclear proliferation.

[@MetalBull2024]

Great video by the way! Thanks. Shared on twitter amongst nuclear friends!

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Thanks for sharing!

[@tbix1963]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, ideas and videos. Very good review on this nuclear option. As impressive as their safety accomplishments are they are still old fashioned nuclear with all the problems related to the spent fuel. channels like yours are important to bring the facts to the younger generations. One thing to remember is used fuel isn’t really nuclear waste, it’s better to call it untapped potential energy. The newer design of fast reactors or even Thorium MSR reactors process the fuel to a higher degree and use more of the energy contained within leaving less byproducts with shorter storage requirements. Might be interesting for you to do more episodes related to nuclear energy and some of the other options out there that really need to be brought to the public and the light of day. Wishing you the best, looking forward to seeing more of your videos in the future.

[@glennjgroves]

I have a couple of comments: Firstly, Dr Reyes wording related to expected costs was interestingly chosen. He did not say they would meet the cost range; or that their modelling suggested they would, or forecasts implied they would. The only cost he gave and the only evidence for it was the target price the client had specified. He used the wording that they/his team “want” to meet the price. He did not say they believed they would or could. I realise I could be reading too much into this. However, I am used to scientists being precise in order to be clear. He - possibly deliberately, possibly not deliberately - did not at any point state what he thought the price would be, or what any modelling by his team suggested the price would be. I realise it would be very hard to model pricing, but they either have not modelled it; or they know the results of the modelling were unreliable; or he very carefully did not say what the modelled prices were. Whatever the cause, we have no idea what the price actually will be, and I have little faith it will be the price mentioned. Secondly, in terms of land area required, I agree that nuclear plant/infrastructure requires little land for the volume of electricity produced. However, full size nuclear generators in parts of the US at least have exclusion zones around them, so they actually “lock up” sizeable areas of land (far more than the plant itself.) If SMRs needed those exclusion zones also, then I think the land/space requirements could still be sizeable. I don’t know if SMRs need an exclusion zone or not. (I don’t even if the full size plants ever truely needed one, I just know at least some have them.) But if they will be required to have one, that might alter the size comparison so to speak.

[@MetalBull2024]

SMR’s would pop into a coal plant location no problem. I believe this is where will see the first one in this country.

[@glennjgroves]

@@MetalBull2024 your comment does not seem to address any point I was making; unless you have evidence that exclusion zones are really not required for SMRs.

[@MetalBull2024]

To lockup a zone is one thing, to clear it for “spacial requirement” i.e turbines is another. I’m not anti renewables FYI. I just think we need all the low carbon options at our disposal. Nuclear is extremely effective and should be in the plans if/when it’s needed. It’d be a shame if we got 2030, realised we needed it in the mix and then started the process of lifting the ban even further behind the curve. Forward planning/keeping options on the table is smarter than just ploughing madly for an ambitious 100% RE grid.

[@glennjgroves]

@@MetalBull2024 that still does not actually address the point I made about exclusion zones. Renewables do not have exclusion zones. You can farm directly under wind turbines and around (and to some extent under) solar panels. You can live and have businesses right next to wind turbines (though shadow flicker and noise in some weather conditions are an issue for homes and some kinds of business.) Do you actually, genuinely, not realise that you have not remotely addressed the point that I was making regarding exclusion zones? Why do you respond to comments when your response is not actually a response to what was in the comment?

[@joels7605]

Another excellent video Rosie. Thanks. A few massive flashing warning signs jump out at me. Feature creep and minimum viable product are critically important concepts, and the downfall of so many new companies. Even simple product ideas are very difficult to execute in practice. They're making an SMR. That's a really great thing. Stop there and get that working. Add in all this extra stuff like high temperature hydrogen production and they're doomed. This is the trap that kills so many new companies. They're going to over-extend themselves trying to do all this other stuff and the whole company will implode.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

I agree that's a risk, it's an issue I fight about with nearly every startup I work with! They have a huge number of features they're trying to incorporate before they produce their first demo. I am always telling them to just get the most basic functionality working, then add in features later. In my experience, usually the reason startups are adding features "too" early isn't because they are trying to make life hard for themselves, but rather because they need funding. And a customer has offered them funding if they add feature X. Or, they *assume* potential funders will require feature X. Usually the latter actually.

[@joels7605]

@@EngineeringwithRosie I think you hit the nail on the head with the funding. Hydrogen is a much more impactful buzzword right now compared to SMR. If you're going after green funding you need to say either "hydrogen" or "carbon." In reality we need all of these things, but only some are getting attention. ...don't even get me started on all the mega-nano-carbon-hydrogen-blockchain funding scams. I've (briefly) worked with one. The ease at which a company can vacuum millions in funding simply by saying a few key buzzwords is staggering.

[@pbecker1865]

@@EngineeringwithRosie another possible reason that startups add features is that the core concept does not stand up to close scrutiny. So the only way to make the product viable is to add commercially valuable by-products

[@PaulBostwick]

@@pbecker1865 That (and/or) they have to keep refreshing the buzzwords to keep their lease on the various funders short attention-spans.

[@bazoo513]

I believe this is a good advice.

[@rgjohnjw]

Excellent video. Very informative and balanced.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Glad you enjoyed it, thanks!

[@ketangandhi3134]

Hello Rosie. I've been following you for a while now. I really enjoy your videos and find them very useful and insightful. I am a chemical engineering undergraduate and now I'm pursuing Masters in Energy Systems Engineering. I often find the energy domain very confusing and complex, so videos like these really help a lot and make me confident about my choice of pursuing energy😀.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Hi Ketan, thanks for that encouraging comment. I think everyone finds energy systems confusing and complex! Things are changing so fast in the energy transition that even those who have worked in the field for decades find their education and experience isn't enough to know what's going to happen even just a short period of time in the future! But that's what makes it such a great time to be an engineer in this field, there are so many interesting problems to solve. I am sure you will have a great career. Good luck with the rest of your studies, you have chosen (in my biased opinion) a fantastic field.

[@ketangandhi3134]

@@EngineeringwithRosie Thanks a lot for your reply 😁

[@apuuvah]

The mighty energy of the atom WILL be the future.

[@johnswolter]

Take a study into Complex Adaptive Systems on Wikipedia & expand from there : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system Also, the key inventor : John Henry Holland, here at the University of Michigan Psychology & College of Engineerng Computer Science Departments. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Holland Also, see the Santa Fe Institute's ongoing work. : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute Thank Roise. Have you considered MIT or U of M here in the US??

[@mx2000]

I'm sceptical of the HTSE part, simply because that would work for any other thermal power plant, yet somehow it is not commonly done today.

[@kevinmcdonough9097]

Skepticism may be earned, but power companies are notoriously conservative and resistant to tech changes. So it wouldn't be implausible that none of them have the R&D and risk tolerance to try.

[@SocialDownclimber]

I think that might be more of a matter of the price difference between electrolysis and steam reforming. If you are going to burn fossil fuels to make the energy, you might as well convert them directly to hydrogen with greater efficiency.

[@Tron8086]

Great video!

[@christinedo]

Real nice exposition. I wonder if you have done any on ground and air source heat pups I have both, no they do a great job, and ground source in particular is invisible!

[@Ikbeneengeit]

Great topic and nice analysis.

[@tokasam_win]

I'm generally impressed by your video. NuScale is a very interesting vendor and have been for a while. Even though they haven't pursued Gen IV tech, they've achieved so many key features of what a power plant should be now that in my mind, it's a really good yard stick for a "sensible design". Too many reactors seem to be primarily technology advancement, and a solution second, whereas I think NuScale have taken a good approach to making a good solution and developing what they needed to. Some of the key issues w/nuclear plants: Risk of financing a plant (e.g. Sizewell C): modular design used here means reduced risk for financiers and shorter time between starting the investment and seeing first returns Challenging build and construction (e.g. Hinkley Point C, Vogtle): smaller components lend themselves to factory manufacturing Low variability of supply (e.g. entire UK fleet): multiple ways to load follow Safety (e.g. Fukushima): passive pumping and passive safety systems Not all of the problems are addressed by NuScale, but it looks like they've made a big dent solving the problems of getting nuclear power plants onto the grid. We'll see how it progresses from here, because so far all of these are promised benefits rather than demonstrated. I'm hopeful though. I'm also hopeful that other vendors will start to take a similar approach of solving the problems and not just pursuing interesting technology.

[@koyamamoto5933]

I liked the video. Thank you. Around 11:00 comment - I would characterize NuScale's cost benefits as: mass production vs mostly custom (as seems to be the norm with traditional nuclear power); off site vs on site manufacturing; enabling the building to be made in parallel with the manufacturing & transport of the reactor modules thus reducing total capital expenditures; advanced safety measures designed in allows for better safety at lower cost.

[@theelectricwalrus]

👍 It's great to see what's "new" from an engineering perspective with the vacuum and water sealing safety tech!

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Thanks Christopher. I learned a lot from Dr Reyes and the research I did for the video. This was a lengthy video to make, but worth it for what I learned and I'm glad you thought so to.

[@bluesideup007]

Thank you for shining some light on the technology. I've been following news about SMRs, MSRs and related technologies for more than a dozen years. Unfortunately, during this time the regulatory and public perception gains have been glacially slow. Nuclear has to be part of our future energy solution. Too bad we are several decades behind the curve.

[@tyronedlisle4412]

Hey Rosie, Fellow Aussie here and passionate nuclear campaigner due to the climate crisis. Whilst nuclear can be expensive the value it provides is greater than wind and solar, in that it's dependable clean energy, it provides the foundation for our modern society that's extremely energy hungry and can't easily just shutdown if we see a dramatic dip in wind or solar output. See Europe in 2021 when they experienced a wind drought. Also LCOE isn't the best at comparing the value or cost of technologies. The significant reworking of the grid to accommodate variable sources adds expense to the system which pushes up the price consumers pay. Finally, I'm 100% for going as hard and fast as we can on deploying clean technology but we have to remember that net zero isn't a like we cross and the climate crisis goes away. We have to sustain a clean energy system in perpetuity. So a MWh of nuclear produced in a decade or so is as usual to that goal as one produced today.

[@dasautogt]

Rosie, I'm just a DOUG (dumb old utility guy), this was very interesting/educational. Thank you, really enjoy your videos. 🙏

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Thanks Graeme, and I never heard the term DOUG before, you made me laugh 😂

[@dasautogt]

@@EngineeringwithRosie few of us around Rosie, we try keep up with tech. 😁👍

[@joedance14]

Thank-you! I always enjoy your very informative videos. In this one, remarks were made about reducing costs, but I never heard “standardized design” or “standardized production processes” mentioned. And THAT is really the key. Same for safety. Regarding safety, “passive safety measures” were mentioned, but not described. Also not mentioned, the expected life of the SMR, and safe disposal of an SMR. This is the first time I have seen an SMR immersed in water. Steel rusts. It also grows brittle when exposed to radiation. How are these issues dealt with? Hydrogen production was discussed only in terms of supplying chemical plants. What about steel plants? Aluminum? Recycling plants? What about the use of SMRs and SMR hydrogen by electric utilities to flatten the duck curve? Is that actually feasible? Is anyone working on it? Thanks again for a thought provoking piece.

[@dugandav1]

A well balanced argument, I think it’s too easy for people to come to emotionally attached to the issue regardless of the facts surrounding Nuclear

[@bertilhatt]

“Shout out to Mr. Philby, the best physics teacher ever.” This. This so much. I’m hoping that Mr. Philby is subscribed and has notifications set to All. Sir, I’d say you did incredible work, but you can see that for yourself. Every geek has that one science teacher that lit the flame and they will never be forgotten. Mme Suire is in heaven now, but I won’t forget.

[@bazoo513]

Do those numbers on price of wind and solar power include the cost of storage needed for them to function as baseload sources, or, alternatively, the cost (financial and environmental) of various "peaker plants" (usually gas powered) used to "smooth out" their output?

[@bikemadkiwi]

Heya Rosie- great content as always. I wonder if anyone has dealt with the issue of nuclear waste, and/or included in cost analysis.

[@wjhann4836]

AS my concern. But can we now estimate those costs when we don't know how to store that waste permanently? AFAIK no country / state has a perfect solution.

[@jimurrata6785]

The biggest issue is that conventional nuclear fuel is only depleted by a few percent before it is "spent" Much of this is down to international treaty. As a species we have to get out of this "waste" trap. There is no waste, only a valuable resource that can be dangerous if ignored.

[@AndrewSheldon]

Couldn't opponents bomb such a facility to disperse contained nuclear isotopes. Probably the only concern I have, and its true of conventional reactors as well I guess; only more so. I guess old mine sites, with established declines for access would avoid this, but a constraint of being 'location specific'. Great interview by the way.

[@WobblycogsUk]

Great video. I'm firmly in the pro-nuclear camp but I can't help feeling the technology is largely finished for power production. With every passing year regulations that are already absurdly tight get tighter to the point where new projects become impractical. On top of that there is no political will to do anything about the problem, no politician that values their political career will stand up and say nuclear should or even could be part of the solution. Maybe if the current sky high energy prices continue we'll see people start to accept nuclear a bit more but I can't help feeling the anti-nuclear sentiment is so strongly ingrained it might never change.

[@bazoo513]

And then, when New Orleans, Key Largo and Manhattan are under water, we will throw all regulations to the wind and build '50's style reactors willy-nilly.

[@acmefixer1]

@Wobblycogs Workshop "Anti-nuclear sentiment" or anything the public (including you or I) feels about new nuclear power has nothing to do with whether or not new NPPs will be built. The utilities are the ones that decide to build new NPPs and they're not choosing new NPPs because of multi-billion dollar cost overruns and decade long construction delays. Flamanville, Hinkley, Okiluoto, Vogtle, all these new NPPs in various countries have these problems. Utilities are not going to build any more new NPPs.

[@pietersmit621]

The Russian invasions of Ukraine is showing a new risk related to Nuclear, where deliberate actions during war increase the risk of nuclear accidents.

[@gregbailey45]

Did I miss it, or was lifetime not mentioned? Presumably, the fissile material is in the form of solid rods, and these require regular replacement in a 'normal' reactor, something like every couple of years or less. I do not recall hearing anything about fuel lifetime or replacement intervals. This must have a big impact on running cost and/or lifetime cost of thus type of reactor system, surely?

[@kenwing6196]

AWESOME!!!

[@cynthiagelmirez3738]

Wow 😯 how exciting! This is so amazing and promising! Since NuScale has been approved as viable then it probably needs to be expanded. Does this mean that the U. S. has a new opportunity for becoming productive again?

[@ecospider5]

I really like the fact the power output is variable. Yes it takes an hour and a half sometimes to do that but that timeframe can easily be covered by a large battery and their steam bypass technique.

[@nowthenad3286]

That was a brilliant video. I have subscribed. BTW, you really need to get yourself a better microphone.

[@daedalusdreamjournal5925]

While some nuclear power main remain in the future, I don't see the cost going down as the guest expected (58$ in the best case and with public funding ... and with a new technology that has yet to be commercially viable). Standard nuclear is expensive due in part to safety regulations and small reactors while having an advantage there are still to be determined safe(r). A lot of hype is made around that technology while it's still in the works and has been for a while. Renewable is coming faster and better due to shorter iterations cycle and greater security and I think this is what is going to win in the long term. The war in ukraine is also reminding that human created threats can also be dangerous while using nuclear and they can be targeted in time of war .... or through terrorism. ANother way to look at this is that it's wayyyy too soon to declare the small reactor the solution for the future while they are still in development the same kind of thing that can be said for fusion power. Because despite the progress been made recently we're still waaayyyy before true commercial power for fusion (though the small reactors should hopefully come to fruition sooner than fusion).

[@gunnarbech8147]

In Sweden, we had a very succesfull nuclear program with 12 reactors of which 6 are still in operation. I worked with maintenance of these plants at the same time as was studying to become an engineer. I have in fact taken several showers in reactor water. Radiation is a very well known science subject and we know very well how it affects humans. So that we dont need to be worried about. Regarding small failsafe or passive safe reactors, the Swedish company Asea Atom had a ready to build solution already in the seventies. Unfortunately none was build and now Asea Atom is part of Westinghouse. From my perspective as an engineer working with renewables, it is an excellent idea to develop small safe reactors that can be placed closer to cities and provides the cities with electricity and district heating. We in the rich countries should instead focus on renewables where it can impact most, in developing countries so that they dont build fossile power plants.

[@davidelliott5843]

Please take a close look at Moltex and Elysium. These use molten chloride salts (basically table salt) to carry the fuel salt and as a heat transfer medium. The list of advantages over traditional PWR (large or small) is extensive. The biggest bring they can literally burn used “spent” fuel to make 20x more energy per kg of fuel and cut the radioactive life by 1000x.

[@touyats1]

How does the safety and safety cost develop if instead of having only some big nuclear plants placed miles away from populated areas, versus having one modular plant for each city of neighboorhood of a large city? Linearly, super-linearly, or exponentially?

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Well, according SMR proponents it will decrease costs. It would presumably be an exponential effect, due to the learning rate effect (Wright's law). But if the exponent is close to 1 then even an expontial cost reduction can be very slow. And so far we haven't seen any evidence of SMRs delivering on their promises. So we'll need to wait until the end of the decade to see if NuScale are different.

[@echoeversky]

Their proposed clusters of 12 or 18 SMR's allow to take 1 down for servicing and require a smaller safety footprint around the site but it currently still needs that buffer.

[@factnotfiction5915]

NuScale is asking the NRC for an EPZ of 40 acres (a square 400 meters a side) - i.e. the plant's boundaries. A traditional US plant occupies about 1-1.5 square km and has an EPZ of about 10 miles in radius. This smaller footprint thus requires MUCH less land and planning.

[@echoeversky]

@@factnotfiction5915 THANK YOU FOR THE FOLLOWUP! :)

[@davieb8216]

Thanks for you videos. Where can I information on renewable plus storage total grid costs? You mentioned it but didn't provide figures.

[@peternicholson4417]

Another excellent tutorial, thanks. How is nuclear waste disposal costed, any current experience of cost of full cycle ie design, build, operate, dispose? Obviously exclude nuclear weapons research and disposal, just the generating cost cycle.

[@chriscavanagh1347]

Your graphic of the costs of Solar and Wind is faulty at one level: it does not include the cost of the [so far non-existent] batteries that are essential to overcome the intermittency problem. If there was a cost comparison of technical equivalence, you would have to allow for batteries or the massive, typically 4x overbuild in capacity to get reliable continuity. Some argue that intermittency can be overcome by wide area power networks and this is partially true. But for a true costing of solar and wind one would have to also factor in the cost of such a massive power distribution grid, able to cater for the multi directional peak current flows necessary for grid stability. This amounts to disinformation on the merits of solar and wind by omission of the costs of technical equivalence with nuclear power.

[@anydaynow01]

This was a good discussion, NuScale will probably be the first big player on the market followed closely by Rolls Royce with their shipping container sized SMRs. SMRs are the best way to overcome the cost overruns associated with construction boondoggles since the major components are produced by one company with an interest in making efficient use of their time and not the other way around. Also the licensing process for modular plants over bespoke plants is much more streamlined (at least in the US) and thus much cheaper. Hopefully the fossil fuel industry in Australia looses enough sway over the law makers so Australians can benefit from this technology in addition to their abundant solar and Li resources.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

I agree that SMRs seem to have that potential. But I am wary that we haven't seen anyone realise it in decades of people talking about it. So I am reserving judgement until we see some actual projects completed and find out the budget and timeframe. And I don't agree that Australia needs nuclear. In my opinion, we have it way too easy with wind and solar, lots of places for pumped hydro, no real problem with seasonality like a lot of northern countries do. I really don't see nuclear ever getting cheap enough to compete with renewables in Aus.

[@acmefixer1]

@@EngineeringwithRosie The utilities don't see nuclear, which is going up in price, competing with renewables in most countries, and especially here in the US.

[@thedamnedatheist]

@@EngineeringwithRosie, but when you think about it, SMR's are much better for the environment than pumped hydro,- Let's flood a lot of alpine valleys rather than build reactors. I've always found it ironic that The Greens, who will oppose increasing the capacity of Waragamba dam on environmental grounds will also champion pumped hydro over nuclear on purely ideological grounds. The only winners of the long standing antipathy to nuclear energy have been the fossil fuel companies. Not suggesting you are a Green or share their reasons.

[@nesslig2025]

Correction: It wasn't the meltdown in particular that caused the tragic accident. They had pulled out nearly all the control rods and when the water stopped flowing, the core went supercritical and the power increase caused the pressure to increase so much eventually something gave. The reactor lid blew off and all the water was super heated so it flashed into steam. It was this stream explosion (+ perhaps a hydrogen explosion) and the following graphite fire that spread radioisotopes into the environment. The remaining fuel that melted down into corium was comparatively benign because that remained there. Also, those figures of LCOE is from Lazard who limits its scope to USA, where in recent decades the costs indeed increase. However, in the 1960s the costs of USA's nuclear was actually cheaper than today's gas. In more recent times, the costs of nuclear in places like South Korea and France when they were rolling out plants were also much lower. In fact, South Korea experienced a cost reduction rate similar to solar. Experience breeds familiarity for all technologies.

[@jimurrata6785]

Here in the U.S. I grew up with the promise of electricity too cheap to meter. 👍 But I also grew up being drilled to shelter under my school desk and face away from the windows with my head between my knees... By 1986 I was mature enough to realize the long term implications of Chernobyl for Europe and (the then) USSR. Disappointing that 35 years on we are still in the development stages of viable "safer" nuclear power, while Russia has already barged modular reactors to the Siberian coast. Small modular reactors have been in constant use by naval ships and subs since the 1950's with only a few Soviet submarine reactor accidents acknowledged. I'm in the U.S., so I cannot say that there have been no accidents beyond the three sub coolant leaks admitted here. Still, worldwide many vessels operated 24/7/365 for over 70 years. These designs are closely guarded and I can't decipher the evolution of their designs. Graphite moderated reactors like Windscale and Chernobyl that can literally catch fire don't have a place in the 21st century.

[@nesslig2025]

@@jimurrata6785 *"Here in the U.S. I grew up with the promise of electricity too cheap to meter. 👍"* That promise, which is often used to claim that the nuclear industry "over-promises and under-delivers" was made regarding FUSION energy, not fission. *"But I also grew up being drilled to shelter under my school desk and face away from the windows with my head between my knees..."* That is terrible to hear. However, nuclear weapons ≠ nuclear power. In fact, the most successful act of DE-proliferation was the dismantling of the nukes and using the fissile material as fuel in power plants, such as in the Megatons-to-megawatts program. Furthermore, due to international regulation, countries who want nuclear power have to agree to NOT make nuclear weapons. E.g. South Korea. On the other hand, North Korea was denied nuclear power, but that did not prevent it from making its own bombs. Banning nuclear power won't make the world forget how to make weapons. But having nuclear power plants allows us to destroy the weapons forever. *"By 1986 I was mature enough to realize the long term implications of Chernobyl for Europe and (the then) USSR."* My realization came from reading the conclusion of decades long research by experts all over the world, from the UN agencies, UNSCEAR, IAEA, WHO, etc. The consequences of Chernobyl is that 60 or fewer deaths could be directly attributed to the radiation, and up to 4000 could be expected to die from radiation exposure. The biggest impact on human health was not the radiation however. For me, the single most interesting line from the UN report says that "the mental health impact of Chernobyl is the largest public health problem unleashed by the accident to date" in part due to "exaggerated sense of the danger to their health from radiation exposure and a belief in a shorter life expectancy". Meaning, the FEAR of radiation is causing greater harm than the radiation itself. For a comprehensive summary, see the WHO on "Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident" Regarding the environmental impact, today the exclusion zone itself was (ironically) the creation of a wild-life sanctuary. It is a thriving ecosystem that supports large wildlife that almost disappeared from the European continent. In fact, the endangered European bison and Przewalski's horse's horse were deliberately introduced into the zone as an act of conservation. This is likely the consequence of the sheer lack of human presence. Meaning, simple human habitation of city building and forestry is far worse for such ecosystems than the the worst civilian nuclear disaster. Also, nuclear is not responsible for the single worse energy related disaster. That goes to hydropower, a renewable energy source. The collapse of the Banqaoui dam in 1975, the death toll for which is in the multiples of 100.000s. We can make any energy source look scary like this by citing such examples. However, this is a distraction of the real killer. Fossil fuels, which kill 10.000 people every day due to air pollution... not even mentioning the effects of climate change has had and will have. Fossil fuels kills more people every single day than nuclear power ever has and ever will.

[@jimurrata6785]

@@nesslig2025 The claims of cheap power were NOT exclusive to fusion. (I was there) But then again we were promised nuclear powered cars and homes as well. 🤣 I totally agree on the lives lost to fossil energy production, and I've already said I understand the _fallout_ of the Chernobyl accident. Thousands of families displaced, dairy and crops contaminated. An international effort costing billions for the new safe confinement. Yes, the optics of the incident did fan the flames of hysteria and set back safer nuclear development worldwide. Much like the stupid idea of Tepco to place emergency backup generators where they could be washed over by a tsunami. I doubt we would have seen the knee-jerk reaction of the Germans prematurely shutting down all their plants without Fukushima. What now, with the threat of Russia cutting off Nordstream 1??? France has been relying on nuclear for a majority of its needs without major incident. You seem to think I'm against the nuclear power industry. You couldn't be more misguided. But I _am_ pragmatic, and I think we need to incorporate the lessons learned from our mistakes. Honestly the exclusion zone is a boon for the environment in northeastern Ukraine. If only humans would do much less to disrupt nature and it's unique diversity of species.

[@nesslig2025]

@@jimurrata6785 *"The claims of cheap power were not exclusive to fusion. But then again we were promised nuclear powered cars and homes as well. 🤣"* I was addressing that particular line that you gave: "too cheap to meter", which was in reference to fusion. Not fission. If you want to say that "some" people have said nuclear energy would be cheap, well... in many places it was/is. Nuclear in the U.S. used to be cheaper than today's natural gas. *"I totally agree on the lives lost to fossil energy production, and I've already said I understand the fallout of the Chernobyl accident."* ...Well...if you say so. *"Thousands of families displaced"* Turns out 75% of the relocation was an overreaction. Meaning 75% of those that have been evacuated did not benefit from being evacuated on a cost-benefit basis. Granted, they didn't know at that time so you can't blame them, but we should learn from this for the future. This is especially the case for situations like Fukushima where NONE should've been evacuated. *"Yes, the optics of the incident did fan the flames of hysteria and set back safer nuclear development worldwide. Much like the stupid idea of Tepco to place emergency backup generators where they could be washed over by the tsunami."* I agree that they should have devised their active safety system less vulnerable to this common mode failure. However, bear in mind that this was one of the worst earthquake/tsunami in history, even for Japan. Japan build tsunami walls all over the island, but pretty much all of them underestimated this freak of nature. Although, the optics here should actually be an argument in FAVOR of nuclear power. Think about it. An old and ill-prepared nuclear plant being subjected to one of the worst natural disasters in human history - and yet - no discernible health effects from the radiation, while people did die from the botched evacuation (that wasn't even necessary). *"I doubt we would have seen the knee-jerk reaction of the Germans prematurely shutting down all their plants without Fukushima."* The Germans had deciding to phase out on nuclear before. The difference Fukushima made is the prompt shut down 8 plants in that year and a completing the phase out in 2022 (that was originally proposed). *"What now, with the threat of Russia cutting off Nordstream 1???"* Since Germany was planning on replacing the firm capacity from coal and nuclear with Russian gas to back up the renewables, now they need either coal or nuclear back, or import expensive LNG from far away. So far, it seems that Germany is outright refusing to reconsider its anti-nuclear stance, while operators are preparing to extend the use of dirty coal (extracted from beneath the forests and villages of Germany). *"You seem to think I'm against the nuclear power industry."* When did I ever say otherwise?? *"But I am pragmatic, and I think we need to incorporate the lessons learned from our mistakes."* Agreed.

[@addestensfors8425]

Today in Sweden, our almost 5000 wind propellers produced 0% electricity... and we had record high electricity prices

[@mikaelwiktorson7221]

I really think this is a good solution, and there are good ways to store the waste at least here in Sweden. We have almost a facility running dispute the huge resistance against every try to locate a storage. Her we use coppercapsules in concrete stored in deep semsic safe underground tunnels. And these SMR modules makes handling much safer

[@johnp3937]

how do you think modular conventional technology compares with modular liquid salt reactors acceptance wise and from a practical point of view....ie refuelling on load and resulting waste?

[@peternicholson4417]

Thanks

[@MrPrime2357]

Finally, something in regards a load following approach. Their approach (reducing reactor output) seems somewhat counterintuitive to me, but I guess they did think more about it than me:D Combining hydrogen production (for seasonal storage) with nuclear power was certainly something which would have been nice to have here in germany. By combining it like this, you can run the power plants and electrolyser always at 100% (most economical and highest efficiency) and only when the renewables are unable to support the grit you reduce the hydrogen production and directly sent the energy into the grit. Now they want to produce the hydrogen from the overproduction of the renewables:D - you can't operate an electrolyser more uneconomically than this, even if you tried

[@nnsnu]

Vad tror du om Vind , där man sätter batterilager i basen på vindsnurran , för att få en utjämnad el leverans?

[@Karagoth444]

Nuclear I see as a necessary component because it reduces the amount of energy storage and overcapacity necessary of renewables, since it provides a dependable amount of energy that doesn't need storage.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

It would certainly make it much easier for countries who don't have excellent renewable resources and low population densities.

[@tonywilson4713]

@@EngineeringwithRosie As an other Australian who has worked in the Australian nuclear industry on the mining side the short answer is: Yes we will need to have nuclear power in future. The long part of this discussion is why and its probably a whole series of videos on the subject starting where the hell are we going with energy generation? Easily the biggest part of the problem is that there are a staggering array of technology promoters all spouting that their solution will save humanity and everything else is worthless. news flash every one of them is WRONG and also partly right. *None of them are going to save humanity or the planet, but some of them will play a part in our energy future and if we get very lucky we might save the planet.* I did an odd little consult job about 5 years ago and during I discovered just how old our power stations are in Australia and just how big the problem is of replacing them. When I checked around the world its just as bad and in some countries worse. The problem started about 25 years ago when planning for new MAJOR power stations effectively stopped and then construction with it. By "major" I mean Giga Watt class stations of (1,000MW or larger). The problem has been partly masked by the massive rollout of rooftop solar. In the 80s & 90s when our population went from 15 to 20 million we built a bunch of new stations. in the 2000s and 2010s our population went from 20 to 25 million and we built NONE. Anybody who ever took a class in economics knows what happens when demand goes up and supply doesn't match it. Prices go up and that's exactly what's happened. Australia has a huge problem and nobody wants to publicly talk about it. (edit) I had a typo it was supposed to say 25 million not 50

[@tonywilson4713]

@@EngineeringwithRosie A quick other point. There is nothing new in the safety methodology that they are using with the control rods descending into the core to reduce the reaction. That method has been used for decades. In fact I remember my science teacher explaining that's how Lucas Heights works and I finished high school in 1982. On top of that at my speech night in 1980 we had an old boy from ANSTO give the main speech and he told us that one day we will have nuclear energy in Australia. The world would have to use it because there was no other way that we would be able to keep up with the demands of a growing population. It remember it because it shocked us. We were just kids but it shocked us. I can remember being at home afterwards spitting chips. My father (a science teacher) asked me "Well how else are we going to supply power?" You see even back then when our population was only 15 million recognized that our population would grow and with it the need for power. That reality is about to smash a few countries, Australia being one.

[@danyoutube7491]

@@tonywilson4713 Just a note about the population; I Googled just now because going from 15 to 50 million sounded incredible. According to various websites the population of Australia is 25 million; still a considerable rise, particularly in terms of proportion to the 'starting point' of 15 million, but not more than trebling in size :) Not that this invalidates your point about lack of new power generation provision, but just to say the change hasn't been quite so dramatic. Mind you, it does surprise me (as an English person) that the population has risen so much. I do know that moving to Oz has long been an ambition of a lot of my fellow countrymen, including a childhood friend, and immigration probably explains a lot of the rise. For a country whose governments have long seemed so keen on coal though, it is surprising to hear that they haven't been building more power stations in recent decades.

[@tonywilson4713]

@@danyoutube7491 It surprised the hell out of me when I first found out. When raised it with another engineer one day telling him the issue was: "We had a power system built for 20 million and a population of 25" he called me out for BS. Then I showed him the list of our main power stations and when they were built and he freaked out with "Why aren't we building power stations." Then it hit him - politics and money. That was nearly 4 years ago and NOTHING has been started. There was a burst of consternation a few weeks ago when they announced one of our largest would be closing AHEAD of schedule. Not only has that concern died but the stories totally ignored the fact of how many stations have already shutdown without being replaced and how many are going to shut down in the next 3-5 years WITHOUT any plans to replace them. Did you ever see the hare and greyhounds scene from the film "Snatch"? We are the hare and we are "Proper farked"

[@brianwheeldon4643]

Agree with your summary Rosie. I'm ambivalent about SMR, but it would be a great complement to solar and wind. Thanks ps one question abt old SMR reactors and disposal in a world that's passing through a maximum average increase of 7 deg C over land, 2 deg global avg with chaotic weather and tipping points triggered. Is it problematic? Tks

[@tobyw9573]

How does the 1/3 scale prototype operation numbers compare with the full sized SMR?

[@timmurphy5541]

you can create a big site and put one reactor in at a time - that might reduce the capital cost without increasing the planning problems. The main issue is that one needs technologies that we can spend money on now, as you say so we should be spending the most on solutions which are already mature

[@jdillon8360]

Great video. Thanks Rosie. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I think in the case of Australia we could possibly get out of fossil fuels entirely by 2040 or 2045. I image a grid with roughly 80 to 90 percent renewables and 10 to 20 percent nuclear. We have plenty of uranium, and very stable geology, so we could store nuclear waste far from population centres and in areas that aren't affected by earthquakes. It's a hard sell to get people to accept having a nuclear power plant in their town or city, but as a society we have to wake up to how much damage is being done not just to ourselves but also to plants and animals by all the coal, oil and gas extraction, transport and burning.

[@RCdiy]

Please always ask how the cost of storing and monitoring of nuclear waste for thousands of years is calculated and included in the costs? Is there a real solution or will the problem be “solved in the future”? For example in Canada Ontario the waste is still “temporarily” stored on site on the shores of Lake Ontario. With lots of smaller nuclear plants what happens to the waste? Is it harder to track and keep safe? If shipped to a central location we now have lots of nuclear waste being transported in lots of different vehicles or trips. This increases the likelihood of a mishap.

[@barryansell5981]

SMR` are fully operational now .As commented below they have been powering subs for decades. so whats the hold up? Slot them straight into and substitute SMR`s for the existing coal powered segment. Couple up to generating plants just throw away the coal segment. Already built turbines and generating plant with a power distribution grid .

[@richardservatius5405]

a SMR is being built at the idaho national laboratory. micro reactors are being studied so that during a disaster a micro reactor could be trucked or railed to the site for quick power.

[@BenMitro]

Well said Rosie. We could ensure that the SMR plant also takes care of the radioactive waste rather than externalising their waste issue. Safety of the plant should be treated as a whole system safety issue, including radioactive waste in legislation.

[@jimurrata6785]

Benny, I have a question. What if that legislation were to say 'You can only lease your fuel rods. All fissile material remains property of the Department of Energy.' If that lease price included both production _and_ spent re-processing costs do you think that would assuage your concern about waste? Right now it seems the French are the only ones re-processing spent fuel or using breeder reactors. The operational safety factor of the plant is really one of tight QC at the factory and ongoing inspection. This seems very similar to what we have today in the aircraft industry. And at similar cost scales. Type certification of a completed model built on production tooling using approved process would have development costs ameliorated over the production run. The current system here in the U.S. where every power plant is unique and needs individual approvals and inspection processes is absurd.

[@BenMitro]

@@jimurrata6785 Yes, Jim - something like that would be start. There is also the materials used that do become radioactive over time that also need to be properly managed. I think of the mining industry here in Australia where they remove the mineral from the ground, make a mess, destroy the local environment and spread various processing chemicals, many highly toxic and other waste around the area and into the water table, into rivers and streams, then shut the mine down when its no longer viable and walk away with some agreement to clean up that they never honour. Its a total failure.

[@jimurrata6785]

@@BenMitro Im definitely aware of those situations. There are a number of mining towns abandoned because of toxic tailings and leach ponds here in the States

[@seneca983]

@@BenMitro Waste treatment is probably not any different than for more traditional reactors. Same procedures can be applied.

[@BenMitro]

@@seneca983 The problem I'm alluding to seneca983 is that these procedures have not worked and have left tons of waste badly managed. Profits drive all industry and if there is a loop hole in legislation or the people ensuring compliance are not doing their job, then things will get missed...great for the bottom line, shit for the rest of us.

[@DarrellW_UK]

I think that this is potentially a more acceptable way to continue with Nuclear power. The main thing that really needs development is how the waste spent fuel is processed, that’s the thing which is the most unacceptable part. It could be a very good ‘gap stop’ plus the hydrogen and oxygen generation could be lucrative. As usual a very interesting topic, keep them coming 👍

[@fredsasse9973]

Highly-radioactive spent nuclear fuel is but a small portion of the radioactive waste produced by fission reactors. Up to 90% of the radioactive waste is considered intermediate to low-level waste that is a lot easier to safely deal with. Much of the spent fuel can be processed and re-enriched which not only makes more fuel but also reduces the amount of highly-radioactive waste to deal with. This would allow nuclear power to become a carbon neutral way of generating power until technology allows for the use of other less problematic carbon neutral methods to replace the nuclear power.

[@MattOGormanSmith]

Nobody talks about a major potential cost/safety saving. When the module is spent it can be trucked or barged back to a specialised reprocessing facility, instead of trying to decommission it on-site.

[@stanleytolle416]

You need to look at high temperature reactors where heat can be stored in molten salt tanks. These reactors can function as peaker plants enabling compatibility with renewables producing power when the renewables can't.

[@keithfullmer1058]

Please modify your cost comparison chart to include the cost of batteries or other energy storage for wind and solar for more equivalent comparison with other power sources.

[@lachlandoughty545]

Hi Rosie, Does dealing with nuclear waste in the same way as traditional nuclear generators mean storing it for thousands of years in someone else’s backyard?

[@peterkratoska4524]

Looking at some regions Ontario for example, 65% of its electricity generation is from the 3 Nuclear Plants Bruce, Darlington, Pickering (the Bruce at 5.6gwatts being the largest in the world today. Those were built over the 70 and 80s and in fact is one of the first SMRs in the works (At Darlington). Conversely Ontario from 2010 built some 2700 wind turbines (assuming at 3-4million each a total of $11billion) which generate at most $7% of the provinces electricity. I know there is a question of how whether or people want to be next to nuclear plants, but there is a similar question of living near wind turbines that make a constant noise - and the possible effect on property values (and on livestock etc).

[@FranceBernardof0609]

Thank you very much for this presentation. I am still skeptical about the NUSCALE design has it incorporates a significant amount of water in its outer protection consignment encasement. Water is hazardous in case of excessive temperature due to an eventual meltdown of the reactor's core. When vapor fuses out of a leak it separates between hydrogen and oxygen and instantly hydrogen detonates when in contact with fire. It happened that way in Chornobyl and Fukushima. This type of design should not include water at any stage.

[@michaelviney3737]

Happily today in the UK our government and the opposition confirmed more base load nuclear plant would be constructed ASAP. Also more offshore floating wind farms. It looks like we will have the most expensive electricity in the world from 1st April. I like your videos from an engineering point of view but I know first hand you can create pricing comparisons to highlight a view point . Around the year 2000 a study on the comparative costs of all forms of generation was done for the UK government by a company I was involved with. The study included all phases of a project including decommissioning. Most expensive with a life of 20 years ? Yes off shore wind £145/MWhr Cheapest with a life span of 60 years? Nuclear £60/ MWh Fast forward 20 years and the improved wind turbine designs have improved the utilisation factor for some models to as much as 45 % from 25 %. Life span increased to 25 years. These improvements make some positive difference But in the UK price in a credit for carbon saved and miraculously wind becomes much cheaper. I once worked in all six of the UK s nuclear plant which were funded by our then nationalist power industry and we were a world leader . Privatisation happened and no new nuclear and all skills in nuclear disbanded and now gone. In the last few years the realization dawned that perhaps new nuclear would be good. To get the international private sector involved the UK government had to guarantee a strike price of £145/ MWh……….Also the complete lack of talent in the civil service all contributes to high prices for the first of a kind new 4 th generation plant. Hopefully the Nth of a kind prices will be 50 % less. Bet you Germany keeps it’s nuclear plant running a bit longer now they have decided not to import Russian gas!!

[@totalrecone]

Hi Rosie. One thing that has always baffled me is why isn't the nuclear waste produced as classed as 'Emissions? Considering that the cost of removal, processing and very long storage times of that waste surely cannot be classed as anything but. Would love to hear your thoughts.

[@MetalBull2024]

Because it not emissions! Google the word emission. There’s your answer.

[@tobyw9573]

Current nuclear waste can be used as fuel for advanced reactors (95% of it). See Gen IV reactors.

[@anonimouse8918]

Thanks for a great video. I have a question you might help regarding the quoted price of renewables. It seems to me that the intermittency is not accounted for in the prices often quoted and yet this is critical. How can something that is cheap when you don't need it and not there when you do need it be said to be cheaper in any meaningful way? For example the cheapest way you can compensate for windpower intermitancy with current (or next 5-10 years ??) tech is by building nearly the same capacity in gas turbine generation. This is what we have done in the UK. In which case how can a system which has gas generation as a component part be said to be cheaper than gas generation? I have put this question in a renewable-skeptic way just to emphasize the problem but I am not anti renewables and I can understand why the renewable lobby want to paint a favorable picture to keep up investment. I'm am in favor of massive investment in R&D for grid-scale energy storage to help to reduce this problem but the worst thing that could happen IMO is that these apparently low prices result in a reduction of investment for nuclear, we need both. If you could investigate this price issue it would be informative. Thanks again.

[@Wowzersdude-k5c]

Wind and solar are virtually useless until they figure out the storage problem. When people's power begins going out randomly they will be yelling for nuclear.

[@acmefixer1]

In California, gas turbines are being replaced by battery storage systems. The claim that gas turbine peaker plants are the cheapest way to solve renewables intermittency is a false assertion. The gas turbine peaker plants are used much less than half of the time, some as little as 5 to 15% of the time. They were financed with the assumption that they would be used for a greater amount of the time. So they don't pay for themselves and lose money over time. There are still ongoing fuel costs for them. For the UK, there are offshore wind farms that are producing a very steady amount of power, 24 / 7 due to steady winds out in the ocean. And there are large pumped hydro storage systems in the north. More pumped hydro storage needs to be built to eliminate all the gas turbine plants and eliminate fossil fuel burning.

[@WJV9]

@@acmefixer1 - I doubt that there is anywhere on earth that the wind blows 24/7/365 with enough force to give you 100% renewable energy. i would have to see those test numbers verified by actual measurement over the last decade.

[@mathewmolk2089]

@@acmefixer1 Like everything that is done in California, batteries are not going to work,,,,,unless you want to have a $2000 a month electric bill or enjoy sitting in the dark with no heat, (You CAN live without AC, you know and at the rate things are going on the West cost you better get used to doing wihout it.) So be my guest and build all the wind an solar farms you want (with German and Chinese parts, no less) but just DO NOT expect the rest of the country to dig in their pockets and subsidize you. Just like anything else when you get woke about anything you end up going broke. ..... Somebody PLEASE build a SMR plant right next to my house. I want the property tax reduction that comes with it, but don't even think about sticking one of those noisy "wosh, wosh" bird killers within 5 miles of my property. Better yet make that 10 miles. The future is nuclear power,,,or we have no future.

[@acmefixer1]

@@mathewmolk2089 Sorry, but you're wrong. New nuclear power plants are far, far too expensive. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

[@ericderbez2446]

I wish Dr Reyes had gone into the long term efficiency of NuScale reactors. What is the burn-up rate? Do they use HEU or LEU? How is re-fuelling handled; does that affect up-time? I like their load following capability: 20 to 100% power in 96 minutes is really awesome. Fast breeder reactors can't really load follow that fast, which is why the idea was floated to run them at higher than necessary output and use any excess capacity to electrolyse water and create H2 -- (but could they do it via HTSE)? Good on them and thanks for the discussion. This time the tragic events in Ukraine might actually work in NuScale's favour. Hey Germany, if you don't want your old reactors, buy from NuScale or Thorcon. BTW France has a 7 *year* stockpile of Uranium. Germany has a 3 to 4 *month* stock pile of natural gas.

[@franciswong189]

If thermonuclear bombs uses fission reactions to induce fusion reactions, why can't fusion power stations use thorium fission reactions to induce or kickstart fusion in tokamak magnetic containment vessels?

[@danielhanawalt4998]

SMR's to me seem to be a significant part of energy production in the future. I think the main problem with how people view nuclear is the radioactive waste and melt downs, which SMR's wouldn't have the same or the level of what we use now. It seems to me a big bonus they can be set up in small numbers and added to later like when a town grows and needs more energy. Meanwhile, till the bugs are worked out, wind and solar can help with climate change to an extent. We can't switch over night however. Fossil fuels will still be needed for some time. We need to use those as clean as possible. As for climate change, I agree, it's changing. Getting a bit warmer it seems to me. I don't think the world is going end for awhile. Still, wouldn't make sense to do nothing till something can replace fossil fuels.

[@robertkkpollock]

SMRs might provide steady baseline power for heavy industry. Making steel, concrete, glass and many other such commodities require round-the-clock intense industrial processes. For these applications, efficiency improves as variability is avoided. Energy input loads for continuous operation of this type are often extreme, but start-up is much worse and deviation from run-mode increased waste, degrade product quality, and lower profitability. Boston Metal’s electrolysis methods for steel manufacturing, for example, might be sensibly located in industrial parks with dedicated SMR heat-&-power plants.

[@billlyell8322]

For decades we have used nuclear generators for space craft. These generators can be powered by nuclear waste. We could use these generators on earth not only to replace fossil fuel power production but also eliminate nuclear waste. That sounds like a win win to me.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Paul Keating has been reviewing the NP Sub situation, in his preferred style of sorting out the situation.., the common sense of having 45 Collins Class Subs for the same money as 3 Duck Shoot targets or 30 years of fossil fuel subsidies has a certain appeal. The Canadian MMR design seems like the optimal choice for Collins Class sized vessels, and/or the Australian Industries, Mines and Rehabilitation.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Engineers have to look at the full picture if they are to have any credibility. I am an old Construction Engineer, Civil and Building. I have successfully achieved major redesign on many projects, even Professional Design Engineers can make mistakes. I recall an extremely young female engineer student asking the most senior Building Structural Design Engineer one question about wind loading on a brand new building in NY, CITI BANK CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS. Fortunately she followed up her own question and the failure in Design lead to the entire city officials being galvanised to save 1,000s of lives. The Citicorp Center engineering crisis was the discovery, in 1978, of a significant structural flaw in Citicorp Center, then a recently completed skyscraper in New York City, and the subsequent effort to quietly make repairs over the next few months. The building, now known as Citigroup Center, occupied an entire block and was to be the headquarters of Citibank. Its structure, designed by William LeMessurier, had several unusual design features, including a raised base supported by four offset stilts, and diagonal bracing which absorbed wind loads from upper stories. Google the story. Nuclear is so large an investment it will block all new research into renewable energy.

[@CapoRip]

4:10 A further specification - that Lazard LCOE figure for nuclear energy* is based entirely on recent build *only* in the US. There is an IEA/OECD-NEA study which surveyed 20+ builds across many countries which found quite different results. (*LCOE can only be validly compared between different energy sources if their generation profile is practically the same, e.g. wind LCOE and geothermal LCOE direct comparison will be starkly misleading)

[@highpointsights]

What do you think about Thorium reactors and what I've read about them being walk away safe???

[@josdesouza]

It seems we're getting more mature when it comes to discussing nuclear energy.

[@damienvanhoogenvan5111]

So the answer to the videos title: NO. Their cost target is $58 pMWh, which is 50% more than the stated wind/solar costs (which might be lowballing a bit). That $58 includes un-disclosed subsidies. Pile on the historic baggage of nuclear and there is no chance in hell this is being used at scale for grid energy. I fully support the company though and hope they find a niche

[@MrStuart21]

Can the SMR design be used in mobile applications? What is the Min height of the reactor?

[@kokofan50]

Yes, they’re all designed to be built in one location and moved to the power plant, and all the navy ship reactors are SMRs. There are some designs intended fit inside a cargo container so they can be moved to areas hit by natural disaster and stuff. The kilowatt reactors are designed to be sent to the moon and Mars.

[@StewartChaimson]

I feel the cost-comparison chart you show can be seen as an apples-oranges thing unless you add the cost of storage to wind and solar (or those technologies are not really green if one accepts fossil fuels to be used as backup power sources). Wouldn't we have been much further along de-carbonizing if we had gone all-in on nuclear, considering that there is not a grid-scale storage solution in sight?

[@grahamcastle8189]

Excellent video cast, very well done. Still a very long term solution to our carbon free energy needs but who would want to live next to one of these?

[@anydaynow01]

Despite what the fossil fuel, media and movie industries say to make money off of people's fears, sentiment has changed with time and will continue to do so especially as the old plants are decommissioned and the new tech comes online. It is like, looking at the safety and efficiency record of the average car made in the 1960s vs an EV made in 2022; they both transport people, have doors, a steering wheel and storage of some kind but the similarities start dwindling fast after those comparisons.

[@factnotfiction5915]

I would certainly prefer to live next to a NPP than to a coal plant, gas plant, or wind farm. ANd I want electricity 24 hours a day. NPPs are quiet, clean, and bring educated workers with good salaries to your town's tax-base. Why would you not want to live next to one?

[@ricknplano1401]

Thank you. Excellent and informative as always.

[@PinataOblongata]

I'm curious - when these things are being transported on a truck or ship, how safe are they? What would be the result of a truck crashing, or being attacked by ballistic weapons in a less secure region, or of a ship sinking with one on board? And what would be the impact of an earthquake that actually disrupts the ground and immediately drains the water from around the unit? When you don't have days of cooling down slowly, and go straight to relying on the steel container to dissipate heat (and the thing is now buried in dirt) what happens?

[@GalenMatson]

Reactors are never shipped with their fuel loaded. And the reaction cannot proceed without moderators.

[@PinataOblongata]

@@GalenMatson Thanks! Seems obvious, now, but I was thinking of them as like a completely pre-fabbed sealed unit.

[@fishyerik]

Mainly because the main issues with nuclear power isn't technical, or even rational, I personally don't think there are technical solutions for them. I don't think SMRs are going to solve anything, small sure, 5-ish or so, percent of a typical "Chernobyl-style" reactor, does anyone in their right mind think that 5% of the Chernobyl accident would be a sh*t happens no big deal kind of event? The answer is: No. And in this case, up to six such reactors, close together, that adds up to about 30% of a "Chernobyl-style" reactor. I know, I know, these reactors are safe, as every type of reactor has been, until in some cases the opposite was proven. In the CGI the reactors share a small body of water, one drought away from loosing that safeness. Yeah, I saw the river, a river can reduce the probability of lack of water, not eliminate it. Also, a river adds an increased risk of severe flooding. At coast, you have possibly tsunamis, other natural catastrophes, threat from other countries, and so on. It's actually difficult if not impossible to find a place where there are no such issues, at least combined with a huge, unmet demand for power. About that, you can be too far from any large grid to be able to get a decent connection, OR you can have a lack of land, you don't have both issues at the same time. Nope, the claimed niche doesn't exist. A somewhat problematic grid situation combined with a slightly problematic land situation sure, but new type of nuclear reactor plus hydrogen storage-level situation, nope. Also, when it comes to nuclear, accidents are considered severe catastrophes even if there are no severe [relatively speaking] consequences. So, it will take a single accident with SMR, even without casualties with enough media attention, to make it virtually impossible to get approval to install any more. And with mass production, accidents are virtually unavoidable. Production of hydrogen, well of course. A bit higher efficiency than ordinary electrolysis, great, but it doesn't matter much. Also, higher efficiency compared to what, electrolysis at room temperature? Why, and even how, would room temperature be maintained in commercial scale hydrogen production with electrolysis? Also, storage, even at 30 MPa, that's 300 bar, you need 50 cubic meters of tank volume to store 1 ton of hydrogen (roughly, and at 20 °C). 30 MPa is scuba tank pressure territory, it doesn't make much sense to compress much further for stationary storage. 250 tons * 50 cubic meters = 12.500 cubic meters tank capacity. Reversible HTSE and fuel cells combined, well, now we left modifying/improvement of existing technologies, that's not equivalent of developing the first production model car, or airplane, that's more like an equivalent of developing a mass produced flying car model in a world where there has been no mass produced car or airplane yet. If you don't even think you can become cost competitive (per MWh) compared wind and solar now, you definitely won't be able to compete 10 years from now with a combination of wind, solar, improved transmission capacities, DSM and enough batteries to make a more reliable energy supply than a few SMRs and hydrogen storage. And, honestly, the cost of alternatives 10 years from now is irrelevant, the cost of alternatives the the proposed technology reaches global significant importance, at the earliest, that should be roughly 40 years from now, assuming best case scenario. By then we will have solar PV built in surface materials of buildings, at negligible extra cost, wind turbines will be developed in ways I can't predict, batteries will be extremely cheap compared to current situation, things like V2G, DSM and VPP will be implemented "everywhere" unless they have been made obsolete be even better future solutions.

[@raybright5805]

So when will we be able to order a unit in a shipping container, all charged up and ready to go & at what cost? That's got to be the question.

[@PhilipWong55]

Of the six proposed fourth-generation nuclear reactor types, the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) is the only type that has high fuel efficiency, no danger of explosion, and does not generate substantial amounts of plutonium. The fissile uranium-233 produced by the MSR is difficult to use for weapons because of the presence of highly radioactive uranium-232. While other Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) can serve as a short-term solution, MSRs are considered a more promising mid-term solution due to their potential to address these issues more comprehensively. Hopefully, we will have fusion by the time we run out of uranium and thorium. The differences between Light Water Reactors (LWR) and Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (TMSR) are significant in fuel utilization and waste production. LWRs use approximately 0.5-1% of uranium fuel, leading to the generation of long-lived radioactive waste due to inefficient energy conversion and the use of enriched uranium. In contrast, TMSRs can achieve fuel efficiency of up to 99%. This is achieved by converting fertile thorium-232 into fissile uranium-233, substantially reducing waste production and more manageable radioactive waste. Uranium Molten Salt Reactors (UMSR) are just as effective as TMSRs. 800 kg of natural thorium in a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) can generate 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity for one year. In comparison, generating the same amount of energy in a Light Water Reactor (LWR) would require mining 200 tons of uranium. In an MSR, the storage requirement for 83 percent of the spent fuel is 10 years, and 300 years for the remaining 17 percent, whereas in an LWR, 28 tons of spent fuel need storage for 300,000 years. MSRs can utilize the spent fuel from LWRs. A coal power station will need to burn 3.5 million tons of coal and emit 10 million tons of carbon dioxide to produce the same amount of energy for one year. That amount of coal contains 3 to 14 tons of uranium, 10 to 50 tons of thorium, and 3 to 35 tons of arsenic. MSRs can adjust power output to match electricity demand, thanks to the inherent and automatic load-following capability provided by the fluid nature of the molten salt coolant. A key safety feature of MSR is that it automatically adjusts to prevent overheating. This is achieved through a "negative thermal reactivity coefficient," which means that as the temperature rises, the reactor's reactivity decreases, preventing a runaway chain reaction. Additionally, the MSR has a "negative void reactivity coefficient," ensuring that the reactivity decreases if there is a loss of coolant or boiling, preventing potential overheating. These safety measures help keep the reactor stable and safe under various conditions. Looking ahead to 2040, China plans to deploy Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) for desalination of seawater, district heating or cooling, hydrogen production, powering of ships equipped with Thermoacoustic Stirling Generators, and power plants with Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Turbines within its borders and globally. In the Earth's crust, thorium is nearly four times more abundant than uranium. Every atom of natural thorium can be harnessed, unlike natural uranium, where only 1 out of every 139 atoms can be used. China produces thorium as a byproduct of its rare earth processing. Similar to the trends observed with solar and wind technologies, MSR costs are anticipated to decrease with the scaling up of production and the development of robust supply chains.

[@markmuir7338]

There's definitely a place for this type of technology. Renewable energy can meet most of our energy needs, but the more renewables in our grid, the exponentially more energy storage is needed - which quickly becomes cost prohibitive. Clean energy that can be available whenever it's needed would drastically reduce the storage needs. Eventually it could slowly be replaced as storage becomes cheaper many decades from now. This seems like the lowest risk approach to zero CO2.

[@acmefixer1]

@Mark Muir Your claims are not true. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

[@markmuir7338]

@@acmefixer1 How does the contents of that Wikipedia article disagree with what I said? FYI: I'm a strong advocate for renewable energy, I studied renewable energy and power systems in University, and I operate my own off-grid renewable energy system for my house. It's important to realize that there's a difference between a few places going 100% renewable vs the entire planet going 100% renewable. Also, it depends on what you mean by 100% renewable: for example, my system produces more solar power than I use over the course of a year, so it can be called 100% renewable; but I still require an additional power source ~5% of the year when there are several cloudy days in a row. This is the case for many of the countries that do have 100% renewable power - they import dirty electricity from neighboring countries when they have a production deficit. The ultimate goal is to replace imports with storage. A few countries have a lot of hydroelectric stations which can provide that storage - but only a few countries have suitable geography. Other solutions are needed for countries that lack that option. I hope eventually energy storage of that scale will be economically viable. But in the interim, we need a clean way to provide imports. Small modular reactors are a reasonable short to mid-term solution for this: they can be installed fairly quickly so can bridge the gap sooner rather than later, and their output can be changed fairly quickly to efficiently cover weather-related deficits in renewable output.

[@markmuir7338]

@AcmeFixer Here's how it works: intermittent renewables require backup for when they can't meet supply needs. Currently that's mostly done using fossil fuel power plants. Academic literature shows you can get to about 20%-40% renewables that way. To go higher (without cheating using grid imports from fossil fuel origin) you need to add energy storage. You can get another 20% by adding ~4 hours of storage capacity to do peak shaving. This eliminates the need for inefficient peaker plants. If most of your renewables are solar, you need at least 12 hours of storage to cover the evening and night. 4 days of storage will allow you to last out most mild storms. But to cover seasonal variation, you may need several months of storage capacity. My house has enough solar panels to produce 150%-250% of what I use during the spring, summer and autumn months. I have 30kWh of storage, which easily covers the night or up to 4 days of gloomy weather. This is 90% of the year. But to be able to last through the winter, I'd need roughly 1MWh of storage. Or some other kind of zero-carbon generator, such as burning algae or small nuclear. There are other solutions: 1) Diversity of supply: have many different renewable sources so they don't all go out at once. This is region specific. Where I live, there's not much reliable wind, water is scarce, so there's only really solar. 2) Massive over-capacity: Have enough renewable capacity to meet your worst times of year, and figure out a use for the 90% you're not using during the rest of the year. Where I live, that could be used to desalinate sea water to solve our dwindling drinking water supply. Here's a good video about some of this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nmbGnmp-hKakkLs

[@acmefixer1]

@@markmuir7338 I don't disagree with you on most of what you pointed out. But first off, let's talk about massive over-capacity. This is what Tony Seba's RethinkX channel discusses. His research says 3 to 6 times the capacity will give the necessary amount for year round supply. The excess energy is used for generating hydrogen and that can be stored in salt caverns for wintertime. The hydrogen will replace gray hydrogen now being made from methane - which must be eliminated. (Continued)

[@acmefixer1]

@@markmuir7338 Continued pt. 2 - Here in So. California, So Cal Edison is replacing gas turbine peaker plants with battery storage systems - presumably to give the 4 hours of peak shaving. However there is no technical reason why these BESS's can't be used for longer term energy storage and release. Tesla has been piloting VPPs - if your system has a Powerwall, you can sign up to join Tesla's VPP (virtual power plant) program. They pay $2 a kWh of power they use from your Powerwall. Also, as more EVs join the grid for power, there is the availability of their storage to be used as V2G - vehicle to grid. This will have potentially hundreds of GW of storage online if the chargers are bidirectional. We haven't touched on the companies now selling systems based on hydrogen electrolyzers, fuel cells and storage. Such companies as Lavo, Gencell, HomePower, Bloom, Plug Power and several others make systems that are not cheap but should drop a lot in price if produced in large quantities. But currently a cheap way to backup residential solar is a dual fuel generator, with either natural gas or propane as the second fuel. However in a few years California is banning the sale of SOREs - small off road engines - like lawn mowers, generators, etc. That is why I gave you the link to 100% renewables. Technically there isn't anything that is preventing renewables from replacing fossil fuels.

[@wilfriedhahn5053]

Look also at Copenhagen Atomics, they want to produce a SMR with 2 cents per kWh thermal energy and fast scaling up production

[@taith2]

TBH, what we really need is FAST solution, and mass produced, possibly fitting within cargo container and deployed on mass

[@nebulous962]

I hope we get these in finland soon because i don't like that we use use fossil fuels to heat our homes in winter. but ofcourse our new olkiluoto 3 help alot too. 🙂

[@ericderbez2446]

Yes and you have also solved the waste storage problem too. China France and Finland and the tip of the spear with the EPRs (Evolution Power Reactors).

[@fredericrike5974]

The further growth of the SMR will also begin to be economically viable for smaller communities to buy into. As well, serve to distribute strategic resources from even storms as well as other agencies. FR

[@Ironic1950]

'Renewables' (they are not really 'renewable') may be cheap to produce, but we are charged a lot to install them, and then because they are intermittent ('unreliable'), they require 100% backup from other, reliable, despatchable, controllable, sources, principally fast-reacting gas plants. Nuclear plants are expensive because of over-regulation; approve the design once, then inspect welds, etc. while constructing, then quickly approve the entire plant, reducing timescale and cost.

[@brollejunior]

Radiation seems contagious, every system in contact with another system that’s in contact with something radioactive will also get radioactive. This seems to favor larger reactors over smaller?

[@stanleymcomber4844]

So it sounds like regulations, not actual building costs are the problem. LFTR’s can be less than 1/10 the size of the fast water reactors, and will be magnitudes safer, while offering multiple revenue streams. One question, did you include the costs of disposing the old panels and wind mill blades? Or the costs of replacing those panels and blades?…

[@paulbrouyere1735]

Thank you for this video. Although I am a longtime opposer to nuclear waste produced by such powerplays, I am slightly positive about this approach, IF it goes together with let’s say 90% renewable energy from wind, solar, water and sea and natural storage systems and a decent way to deal with this waste. Honestly, I know CO2 is a problem, but I don’t want to see that problem being replaced by let’s say cesium 137 causing thyroid cancer.

[@tobyw9573]

Breeder reactor nuclear properties allow the use of "spent" fuel rod waste (90% recovery) and reduces the life of the final waste and its decay time very significantly.

[@paulbrouyere1735]

@@tobyw9573 I would go 100% renewable energy all the way from the first time. No need to clean up the mess.

[@paulbrouyere1735]

Except for recycling and reuse of course.

[@davesutherland1864]

I think SMRs are a very good options for electricity generation from the middle of the next decade forward. However, I think they are going to be a hard sell as too many people have an irrational fear of this technology, despite that fact that reactors using 1950's and 1960's vintage technology have proved to be extremely safe designs. One area where this particular design seemed short of the 'promises' I have heard from other potential designs is the waist aspect. You said this reactor will basically handle the waist the same as current large reactors. Many of these smaller reactors claim to produce less radioactive waist and some even claim they can run off the waist of large reactors, reducing the amount of radioactive waist for long term storage. Did you discuss this at all in the interview?

[@anydaynow01]

The reactors which will run on reprocessed used fuel are another generation beyond these early SMR designs. The efficiency with these new designs are in fact much better so there will be much less used fuel left over to have to recycle in the future per kWh. After this next generation of fission, fusion may just be ready for prime time, it will be interesting to see what ITER has in store for us!

[@davesutherland1864]

@@anydaynow01 I had not heard that distinction between ‘old’ and ‘new’ SMR, but it does make sense that the earliest designs would produce similar waist to current large reactors (and presumably nuclear power military ships.) Future acceptance may depend heavily on a viable waist solution and the demonstration of using waist as fuel for next generation reactors would certainly help. Fusion, however, is a not going to happen this century. Even ITER is only aiming for a Q of one when evaluated as grid power in vs potential power out based on the thermal energy produced.

[@acmefixer1]

The utility customers have no say in what the utilities decide to use for generation. The utilities are the ones who have decided that nuclear is too expensive and takes far too long to bring online. This is what will prevent nuclear from becoming a factor in ending fossil fuel use.

[@acmefixer1]

@@anydaynow01 The ITER is only a test experiment until 2040. After that a new facility will have to be built *if* ITER shows progress towards success. Then the new facility will not be a success until 2060. The money for these multi-billion dollar fusion experiments would be better used if it was spent on building solar and wind factories.

[@lachlandoughty545]

Perhaps the most compelling argument for nuclear power generators of any size is to provide plutonium for nuclear weapons? Which could be an immediate way of disposing of the waste problem.

[@zenzen9131]

I live here on the South Wales coast where they are currently building a new large scale nuclear facility over the channel at Hinkley. Meanwhile, twice a day, I see the second largest tide flow in the world zoom past us without generating a single watt of energy. Frustrating !