Small Misunderstood Reactors

James Krellenstein joins me to discuss the rationale underlying small modular reactors and in particular the challenges of getting novel reactor concepts from the experimental stage to reliable commercial operation.
Support Decouple on Patreon: / decouple
Learn more about Decouple Media: www.decoupleme...

[@EricMeyer9]

Great episode. Spent a good chunk of the afternoon with volunteers, calling legislative offices and asking them to override Pritzkers veto of the moratorium lifting bill. This will be a helpful advocacy tool for those conversations.

[@mikesnyder9474]

Please have James on to continue the conversation as soon as possible

[@hg2.]

GW has stupidly turned "energy" into a big debating society.

[@daniellarson3068]

Yes - This fellow was impressive. About 10 years ago, I became enthralled after hearing Kirk Sorensen's presentations on the Molten Salt Reactor. It sounded so good that I have pondered why one of these hasn't been built. I had heard of the metal embrittlement in the Molten Salt experiment, but had never heard before that it was caused by this rare element and that it had embrittled virtually all of the piping. It makes me think that the Kairos Power idea is one to pursue. The Triso fuel has been used in the UK, Germany and various other reactors. Molten salt has been used in solar plants and has been heavily researched. The salt alone should not cause this embrittlement. I liked the practical sense of this guest. So many people take the approach that things are going to work the first time facilities are built. I grew up in a mining area. Prior to major pelletization of iron ore, pilot plants were built to test out the beneficiation process. These new types of reactors should start small with pilot plants. Bugs can be worked out at the pilot plants before mass introduction. Thanks for the video.

[@BrightDreamer42]

James Krellenstein tackles the technical, financial and social problems associated with nuclear power more clearly than I've heard in a long time. For me the really important point is that we must move to fast spectrum and high temperature reactors. The high temperature to Supply needed industrial process heat and dramatically raise efficiency. Fast spectrum to totally utilize the fuel and eliminate actinides in the way stream. Curious, waist was not mentioned in this episode, that I heard anyway. He had a very sober and realistic perspective on molten salt reactors. Like him I think this problem of metal pipe embrittlement can be solved. Not easily but with enough effort and brain power we could get it done. Far as I know no one has worked on it yet. His advocacy for centres like Idaho national labs and Oakridge to be sighs of excellence for prototype reactors. Yes ~ SMRs for small use cases but what we really need is big modular reactors.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

He also sees the grid costs of renewable electricity. But then ignores the fact that 66% of our electricity bills are the grid costs. So again it doesn't matter how cheap the electricity's cost is we still have the fixed cost of so much per kWh. This is a killer cost $/kWh. 5 times more electricity and no fossil fuels is a horrendously expensive expansion of the grid for central generation of more electricity 2/3rds x 5times = 10/3rds plus electricity costs. 3.3 x today's bills PLUS the full electricity generation costs. Grids are massively more expensive than the generators with centralised generation. This matter is ignored except when arguing against Renewables in distant locations distant from the cities.

[@Cameronmid1]

​​@@stephenbrickwood1602 why you make a good point regarding the expense of upgrading the grid. The reality is that in large parts of the western world especially the United States the grid is in desperate need of updating and repair regardless of who were to increase our electric demands. Not only that but there have been a huge amount of drop in technological enhancement that has developed that will allow the current grid deployment to enhance its ability to meet demand by up to 2x on its own including improvements in electrical line construction and many other things. In short we have to spend a lot of this money anyway so we might as well build for the increasing capacity now.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@Cameronmid1 it is the HUGE length of the national grid and the cost per mile. Both very big numbers and then 5 or 6 bigger again. Imagine the many people can not multiple and do not know what the numbers are. Nuclear promoters say grid costs are so big that distant Renewables are uneconomic. They say exactly what I am saying. They told me on their videos. I just checked on their statements and found that they are right. But it is also their own limitation. Only 15% of total energy is grid electricity. So, then 100% grid electricity is impossible they say.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@Cameronmid1 also the grid is so expensive that even maintenance of the grid is not happening enough. The grid is fragile because it is incredibly expensive just to maintain. Grids are so expensive that they postpone upgrade work.

[@FernandoWINSANTO]

@@Cameronmid1 Investors/Economists have the last word

[@skonne7]

Great stuff. Doing an invaluable service by giving conversations like these the time and space to actually breathe beyond the top-line ideas. James makes a nuanced and compelling case for a particular approach to SMRs without leaving current tech behind.

[@jwholmes2]

The encyclopedic knowledge on display here is epic.

[@dimmerster97]

Decouple is just like a bus. You're waiting ages for one then three come at once!

[@happyhome41]

Another way to talk about the topic of how much work is needed to go from paper through the learning to commercial operation is Technology Readiness Level - TRL. Classically, the government takes tech from 1 to 8 or 9, and the commercial sector will generally accept tech only once it has reached TRL 9. So much experience supports the notion that getting from prototype to production is really really hard, because the problems are too much to accept for the perceived Return on Investment. This perspective 100% agrees with the ideas promulgated here favoring building the units for which we have the experience, industrial base, and existing licenses, vs. effectively the unquantifiable risk of a new design. Of course, the "greens" are guilty of launching into big production without understanding the risks, propelled by faith, and running into the manifold problems coming to light.

[@chapter4travels]

There are 3 billion people on this planet who live with either no electricity in energy poverty. These people will (hopefully) power themselves out of poverty this century with coal unless there is something cheaper, just as reliable and versatile. The only technology that can do that (if regulators will let it) is simple uranium-based generation IV high-temperature/low-pressure reactors. Not breeders, no thorium, simple once-through MSRs. What the rich Western countries do is of no real consequence in the big scheme of things.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

The most energy-starved country in the world is the United States.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

"The only technology that can do that..." Like the ARC-100 Advanced Small Modular Reactor from ARC Clean Technology? kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJa3mYZujsx-ec0 It's a 20-year-fuel fast reactor. 13% enriched uranium. Designed for 2 refuelings, for a lifespan of 60 years. No containment building needed (if I understand correctly).

[@chapter4travels]

@@aliendroneservices6621 I think there are a lot of countries in Africa that would beg to differ.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@chapter4travels All of them would be better-off if the US had more energy.

[@kennethferland5579]

That is litterally the ideal location for small scale solar, when their is no grid a nuclear powerplant is out of the question.

[@ronlocke1848]

The Gerald Ford aircraft carrier has two 300 MW nuclear reactors. Why cant they be used as SMR off the shelf?

[@tomkeus]

Because for one, they are loaded chock full of what is basically weapons-grade Uranium.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

​@@tomkeusThat's for a 25-year run. Maybe they could be loaded instead with high-assay low-enriched uranium *_(HALEU)._*

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@hg2.]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud. There no such thing as a greenhouse effect: KZbin video: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect (Tom Shula) 1) KZbin video: Markus Ott: Questioning the greenhouse effect The greenhouse effect is the primordial sacrament of modern climate science. It is. * * * The dystopian, one-party, Orwellian, preached from kindergarten to the nursing home. The simple name of this effect and its ubiquity in culture and mainstream media leave no doubt that we are dealing here with solid and fully understood Natural Science. But how does this actually effect work? 2) KZbin video: Markus Ott: Atmospheric greenhouse effect ~0? (Applying IPCC formulas to the no-atmosphere moon. Conclusion: there is no greenhouse effect on earth.) Min 6:xx. "Abuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann model..." 3) KZbin video: Markus Ott: Saturation of the CO2-IR-Absorption (Min 0:10) The alleged greenhouse effect of 33 degrees centigrade is the result of an improper use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (black-body radiation), and that a less abusive application of this law makes the greenhouse effect almost disappear. 4) KZbin video: Markus Ott: Convection and Thermalisation Kill The Greenhouse Effect KZbin video: In-Depth Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder's Talk: Greenhouse Effect "Heat transport in the atmosphere... IT'S CALLED WEATHER." KZbin Channel: Climate Discussion Nexus. 267 videos on climate fraud, hustle, and superstition mongering

[@donmc1950]

Very educational. In 2014 I took course on Nuclear Energy from a nuclear engineer who worked on Canada's 1st nuclear reactor at Chauch

[@missano3856]

"Nuclear engineering solution to a financial engineering problem", I like that. "Anything you can actually do, you can afford" J.M. Keynes(I may have mangled that a bit).

[@donalddouglas5988]

The strong nuclear force holds neutrons and protons together. radioactivity is controlled by the weak force.

[@donmc1950]

At Chalk river in 1945. Chalk river was the site of the 1st nuclear reactor accident in 1952. The course covered other nuclear accidents like Fukashima, Chernobyl and 3 mile island. He was an advocate for nuclear energy, but safely. He wondered however how many new nuclear reactors can be actually be financed and how much nuclear fuel is available to fuel these reactors?

[@FernandoWINSANTO]

... who cares about waste, contamination, Tritium, Plutonium, Cesium 137, Carbon 14 ...

[@iancormie9916]

The big mistake on the molten salt reactors was that they were not just left running for a long time. That is rhe only way of determining the long term corrosion/cracking issues. To think that one can model corrosion is unrealistic so the only way of ensuring they will work is to build them and run them. I might also point out that super critical steam systems had more than their fair share of issues when the tech was new.

[@jimgraham6722]

Rickover zeroed the program and fired Weinberg. I believe in part because he kept the MSR running after being told to shut the program down.

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition. "De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@stanleytolle416]

One of the different conditions that past reactors were built under was a different regulatory enviroment. Back when most of our reactors were built utility electrical rates were based on the investment the utility put into generating their power. Like 24 hour base load power got a set pay back for each unit of power produced. Now for most places there is a market rate payback depending on supply and demand at the time. This makes base load power production less advantageous. This is the reason for the interest in high tempature reactors where power output can be stored as heat for the power to be sold when paybacks are better.

[@chrisjohns38]

Alexander Sesonske ridiculed our senior design project (1985) for a 300MW because of your point regarding economy of scale. 100% build AP1000 or similar. Lots of them. Easy. CANDU up north.

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@chrisjohns38]

Ok, FT St. Vrain ran poorly (for some very fundamental reasons). But you overlooked Peach Bottom 1 (1967-1974). It had an 88% availability factor! But your point is good that it takes a great deal of concerted effort to do something like reduce lwr fuel pin failure to essentially zero.

[@mhirasuna]

Where are these already licensed sites? You mentioned Turkey Point; what are the others? I would like to hear about the feasibility of restarting these projects.

[@factnotfiction5915]

www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/col-holder.html www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/esp.html

[@SootyMangabey.]

The NRC website has a list of all current and prospective sites. Note: that suspended means that the COL is still on file. www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/col.html

[@davidbutz39]

You can see the list on the NRC site; Google COLs for AP-1000 or something like that, to wit: Turkey Point, 1 & 2 Florida Florida Power & Light Levy Nuclear Plant, 1 & 2 Florida Duke Energy Virgil C. Summer, 2 & 3 S.C. S.C. Electric & Gas William States III, 1 & 2 S.C. Duke Energy Shearon Harris, 2 & 3 N.C. Progress Energy Bellefonte Nuclear, 3 & 4 AL TVA Status, however: Summer obviously unlikely at the moment, Shearon Harris suspended, Bellefonte withdrawn

[@JohnboyCollins]

I'm still team SMR despite the huge risks and drawbacks. It's a path that has chance at achieving a truly robust industry producing steady improvement over time. And don't discount the importance of transmission/distribution, which is the largest cost component for energy today. SMRs can potentially become deeply integrated with the grid and economy in a very robust way.

[@JohnboyCollins]

@grahambennett8151 no emissions even directly outside of the shielding vessels at safe levels 0even during operation.

[@JohnboyCollins]

@grahambennett8151 well Microsoft disagrees. There's certainly interest in nuclear for onsite industrial power. We'll see how it plays out. Radiation levels are safe even right outside the plant facilities. The extra zone around the plant is an additional security layer.

[@jeffbenton6183]

Im seeing this after 7 months, and it looks like the hate James expected in the comments did not pan out

[@benvastine257]

But w the molten salt reactor, we should at least be trying. There’s Rusty Towell’s work, and whatever Flibe is up to these days. The NRC needs to let us move forward

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@mrfriebe6989]

Always learn something from James, great stuff.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Candu modularity is very interesting. Engineering is a learning by doing within safety factors, and to an outsider, it looks more like an overshoot than insufficient examination of the technology and materials. Build the production line and start now, final fine finishing work can't wait. (?)

[@javamail2]

There are several disadvantages with large reactors: high economic risks, susceptible to delays (note EPRs and US AP1000s), huge upfront unpredictable capital expenditure (even becoming cheaper in the long run), riskier under increasingly intermittent grids, less flexible to follow load, difficult to hide from sabotage and several other reasons. It is better to lose a billion dollars for 10+ cents/kWh if a SMR project stagnates. A large NPP may cost ten times that to save a couple of cents per kWh. Probably a few leading companies and countries will validate SMRs (probably the chinese will operate the HTGR better than Fort St. Vrain´s)

[@portersmith1876]

You should also explore liquid Thorium Salt Reactors(LTSR). One of the benefits of this technology is that you can reuse spent fuel rod from traditional Light and Heavy water nuclear power stations,this technology was discovered back in laboratory at Oak Ridge national Laboratories in the late 1970s to mid 1980s until the research was tabled by Ronald Reagons department of energy

[@kerryb2689]

Good dose of real world reality. We need this from all the green energy sectors.

[@Prometheus4096]

So funny that the nuclear lobby now thinks they have become a victim of their own SMR marketing.

[@brandonvereyken4869]

Great topic great guest. Keep intro UNDER a minute. Any longer is just a huge way to put the audience to sleep. Never preface ANYTHING! There nothing less exciting than phrases like "....and not to get off topic but...." theres nothing more vacant than talk about talk instead of talking on topic aka content.

[@thewiseperson8748]

I have never heard such nonsense as mentioned in this video. SMR's are largely just Power Point Presentations. SMR's are economic non-starters.

[@firefly2900]

lol tell it to the Chinese and Russians

[@techfixr2012]

Pelletized ceramic bwr's 200mw or so seem to be a sweet spot without the need for for control rods or the worry about a runaway situation.

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@patriceparent8673]

cool question for you... instead testing entire new reactor concepts. Why not just cycle molten salt in one of the reactor tubes in a candu. For testing purposes.

[@missano3856]

I don't think CANDU's run hot enough.

[@holysirsalad]

Assuming you mean 'coolant salt' rather than 'fuel salt' in place of heavy water - that stuff is supposed to be 300°C, not 700°C. CANDU fuel elements I think are tested to 600°C, with deforming from overheating being a safety feature that results in a collapse of fission

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@happyhome41]

Silly question: there have been discussions about "what would it take" to restore the reactors in Germany should they come to their senses, or just get tired of being cold/hot, and Mark Nelson at some point said, the answer is six - three that were just shut, and the three before that which have not been dismantled to the point of no return. The silly question is, what facilities in the US could jump start nuclear for the US ? For example, the one plant in California, was deliberately deconstructed. How 'bout the abortive AP1000 in South Carolina -- all the ground prep and concrete - help ? The one in New York ? Read recently that one in Michigan has been petitioned to be refueled and restarted. Descriptive list ? LOVE this episode - and the others too. THANK YOU !!!

[@iancormie9916]

Venturecapital - declare these reactors as strategic resources and use military to fund them. Get the lawyers and bureacrats out of the way.

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@dariomartinez8803]

This is great! Do you know about the business model of the company Last Energy? It's worth to take a look

[@tobyw9573]

One benefit of a reactor, no matter the size, that comes on line really fast, say in a year, becomes a revenue maker in a year. And it can grow at the speed of demand.

[@Pratiquement-Durable]

James is right about the financial aspects of nuclear power and about breeding reactors. But SMR's become really interesting if the waste heat of the reactor is used by e.g. a chemicals' production plant or a paper production plant. Such type of industries need a lot of heat that is actually produced using fossil fuels. If the waste-heat of an SMR is used, its energy yield will be close to 100% whereas big centralized nuclear plants have an energy yield of only 40% and need huge cooling systems. SMR's waste-heat would be useful for urban heating systems too. Please note also that the French experimental fast breeder reactor Phénix worked for 37 years with a load factor of 45%, even though it was an experimental reactor.

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@veteransniper6955]

NPP's waste heat is low grade, it way less useful that it seems. It sometimes used to warm greenhouses and fish breeding ponds. If higher grade heat required, electricity production will be reduced and it's economic may be not as good as it seems.

[@davidandrews1659]

This was Great!! You have vetted the road to these nuclear questions and offered great individual alternatives to known and unknown expected bumps in the road as well as alternatives intertwined with finance and doable existing licensed nuclear. Let’s continue this alternatives exploration rhetoric make as flexible a plan as possible with what we know. Now is the time for Nuclear to step out. The only real hope for this country and the world to reliable base load.

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@Atomicjedi]

Great discussion! I agree 100% SMRs are a nice addition to have, but they're not really special. If anything it's a different way of trying to catch more business. But the trouble is that many policymakers and enthusiasts have engaged with this new "meme" and think that it is the best thing since sliced bread. It isn't. I think there can be a multitude of different business cases for nuclear in general, and I am a fervent proponent of having options, different vendors, different sizes, maybe different heat-outputs. But none are intrinsically better than the other, it's just a question of which reactor(s) fit best with the circumstances they need to be in.

[@chapter4travels]

I disagree, low-pressure/high-temperature nukes and intrinsically better than any high-pressure/low-temperature nuke.

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@Atomicjedi]

@@hg2. I propose a cognitive dissonance check.

[@hg2.]

@@Atomicjedi Any discussion of energy that dignifies "decarbonization" makes me sick.

[@Atomicjedi]

@@hg2. Well, there you have it. There's something wrong with you. Good luck with figuring out how to get better. Tip, leave politics and ideology out of it. Cleanse yourself from any outside influence for at least a month, take some time to walk in nature, pick up some academic works, and start re-acquainting yourself with the scientific method. Let me know how it worked, in 6 months.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Love the title. A vast amount of Dark Money is spent on keeping as much misunderstanding about energy and economics as possible without having to violently suppress actual knowledge. The effectiveness of destruction is still cheaper for them than doing the appropriate thing for the Common Good.

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@missano3856]

I'd like to see some Natriums built because its a metal cooled fast reactor but I don't see too much point to a minature PWR

[@PhilipWong55]

Of the six proposed fourth-generation nuclear reactor types, the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) is the only type with high fuel efficiency, no danger of explosion, and does not generate substantial amounts of plutonium. 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. With the molten salt reactor, 7.5 million tons of uranium will be exhausted in a thousand years at an annual consumption of 7500 tons. Using thorium will extend it by a couple of thousand years. 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 98%. 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) will produce more plutonium but are just as effective as TMSRs. 940 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 210 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, 24.44 tons of spent fuel need reprocessing and storage for 200,000 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, 3 to 14 tons of thorium, and an average of 84 tons of arsenic. 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.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Let's emphasise that the modularity we're talking about is the interchangeable low cost of production of high standard components in a high quality easily distributed format of easily maintained, set and forget, Reactor Designs. Probably means restructuring the United Nations on a "Save this planet NOW" basis, ..calling for international volunteers who know the Actuality of QM-TIMESPACE e-Pi-i sync-duration resonance in holographic nucleation superposition, In-form-ation.

[@arcusmc]

This is very interesting. What I don't understand is why knock the generation of SMRs when the cost is far more reasonable for small cities or counties or utilities that simply can't afford the cost and time it takes to get large reactors online.

[@tobyw9573]

What is the spec range for an SMR? Output voltage and KW? If they match the specs of a local substation (4000V?) you could just wire up the output to the local grid. (just speculating, I'm not an engineer.) And spare the extra expense.

[@das250250]

Build the smaller nuclear plants. Demonstrate their real cycle life performance ,their waste management ,their efficiency, their lower carbon foot print ,their complete robustness to floppy wind and solar risk... Then take that and assemble a marketing campaign to educate the public just what life they can have ..they can have land unfilled with solar panels that last 20 years before they become landfill.. same with wind ... This is an excellent path

[@davidwilkie9551]

SMR, some modular Reactors, asap, optimized for most long-term efficiency everywhere. Hang the bldy cost, wars and the machines of war are astronomically beyond expensive.

[@4Nanook]

I don't "misunderstand" small modular reactors, I dislike them, and the reason I dislike them is their fuel, they generally use balls of enriched U-235 inside of silicon carbide. From a safety standpoint this is good because silicon carbide is much harder to melt than zirconium and thus you're less likely in an accident scene to end up with a molten glob of radioactive mush. And those which are helium cooled also don't need to be under extreme pressure, also good from a safety perspective, but this form of fuel is damned near impossible to recycle because the silicon carbon can't be melted down or easily cut to get the spent fuel and waste products out. Thus you're wasting much energy potential of the fuel and you're creating a million year waste problem. Both UNACCEPTABLE. Much better molten salt breeder reactors that suffer neither of these problems.

[@mikefallwell1301]

Thanks for cutting through the disinformation but I think you could have discuss daughter products and corrosion issues

[@hg2.]

GW has stupidly turned "energy" into a big debating society.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Market policy, ..can we spot the differences between the runaway success of a cancer out competing healthy cells and limiting that appearance of swelling growth to a sensible balance of resources in appropriate application.

[@witttravis]

yes the Children of Atom return!

[@joshuatmorton5716]

on the topic of "next gen" nuclear I would love to see an interview with someone working on Nanodiamond batteries. Came across them on a nuclear expo website. My understanding is that they are working on using semiconductor fab tech to implant radioactive byproducts of traditional LWRs into synthetic diamonds in such a way that creates a useable voltage when the species implanted in the diamond lattice undergo decay.

[@stanleytolle416]

The same amount of total investment and power out is ok and even higher cost if the time to first power production is short. Like putting up wind turbines the first few can produce a cash flow to support the building of others. As such a plant is built the amount of tied up cash is reduced. The other issue as more units are built the costs of each unit should reduce as experience in building increases. Of course there are optical size issues that need to be considered.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

8billion people on the planet. 80% in dictatorships. Which countries do not get nuclear industries???????

[@leechowning2712]

Honestly? I woul prefer they all had it. See Ukraine. For 25 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia did not threaten Ukraine *BECAUSE* they still possessed a small nuclear arsenal. It was only after the EU/NATO more or less forced them to disarm that we saw the first invasion in 2012. Israel was subjected to seven invasions between 1945 and 1980... but after the US leaked that they believed Israel had nukes, the neighboring states stopped. In 2014, when the forces of Lebanon kicked the IDF back out of the West Bank expansion, they did not actually invade Israel. I would like to see almost everyone with nuclear power because it limits expansive tendencies.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@leechowning2712 sorry to say that bloody battles may happen at a low level where both sides do not want nuclear destruction but are happy to 'molest' each other. Putin has not used his nukes but keeps killing his neighbours.

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@leechowning2712 Russia meat attacks with nuclear threats if the USA helped too much. Logic, not dreams.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@hg2. there you go, the nuclear promoters say GW. Who can you believe 🤔 ??

[@chrisjohns38]

Doing a two part license simultaneously is also an option.

[@ambika69]

There may not be much use for an SMR in Rawanda, but there's plenty of other places in Africa that could really use 30-50 megawat SMR's. Various countries in Africa with actual cities. The push to create desalinization plants along the Sahara's coast. The various african nations who are trying to drag themselves into modern living and currently need a big expensive power plant to drive their growth.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Future electricity demand is projected to be 5fold bigger. So 5times bigger grid capacity is the biggest problem. The existing national grid is fragile BECAUSE it is expensive and not overbuilt. 5times bigger grid ???????? Solve the real problem.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

"Future electricity demand is projected to be 5fold bigger." I project thermal to be 1,000-10,000x current demand. Current is 20 TWt. Future is 20-200 thousand TWt. Current electricity *_capacity_* is 8 TWe, and current electricity *_production_* is 3 TWe. *EDIT:* Meant TW, not GW. Fixed.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@aliendroneservices6621 are you saying much bigger? Gwt and Gwe Are you saying gigawatt and gwe ?? In Australia ?

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@stephenbrickwood1602 TWt is terawatt-thermal. TWe is terawatt-electric. *EDIT:* Meant TW, not GW. Fixed.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@aliendroneservices6621 are these Australian numbers?

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@stephenbrickwood1602 No. These are global figures. You live in a 20 TW global world. I meant TW, instead of GW. Sorry. I have edited the above comments to correct that.

[@thearisen7301]

I'd love to see some discussion of adding thermal storage to nuclear plants, both new & old.

[@chapter4travels]

Doesn't work for old high-pressure water reactors, the output temperature is too low. That's one of the many advantages of the new high-temperature, low-pressure reactors.

[@chrisjohns38]

Why not just load follow with nuclear plants?

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@thearisen7301]

Get a VC to invest in a nuclear giga factory. Westinghouse was going to build a factory for GW sized reactors that could put out multiple reactors a year.

[@stevencurtis3404]

Good analysis. But sooner or later, we will have to start talking about the root cause, which is the manner in which Government funding is manipulating the free enterprise development of power sources. This is keeping power a monopoly industry and driving prices up for customers, actually making it much more difficult to help make cheap electricity to float all the boats in the world. We can talk all day long about technology, but if approvals from the NRC are going to be expensive and unnecessarily daunting, no technology will advance in the US. Also, a transition to microgrids, starting with, perhaps some grid-deficient locations, combined with SMR technology, may be very beneficial. No matter where it goes, the free enterprise system should guide it because manipulation of markets only benefits small sections of the industry at the expense of other, perhaps better, ideas. So, until we deal with the root cause in some objective manner, it does not matter much where technology goes because it will be held back by unfair regulations and subsidies for competitors. Just food for thought.

[@albertomontafia1244]

Can new reactors in USA be financed the same way Sizewell C is financed? I am not sure about the details but I understand it significantly reduced risk compared to Hinkley Point C

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@hg2.]

GW has stupidly turned "energy" into a big debating society.

[@ryanreeson9783]

Decouple! Take a look at Erik Townsend's Energy Crisis doc. He'd make a good guest C/J.

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@WallyBraun]

In what universe is a couple of blokes chatting up nuclear power of any scale a good idea, when we after 6 decades we still have no idea what to do with the over 200,000 tonnes of nuclear waste already generated in that time? Furthermore, might the fact that the dislike button has been disconnected be at all related to the possibility that these two blokes are shilling for the nuclear lobby?

[@philtimmons722]

It is a niche market that plays to Nuke Fanbois and Industry types shilling for Research Grant money. No one in the real utility industry with a brain wants a New Nuke. In the US, "Peak" Nukes was 2012, with 104 Reactors. Now US is down to 94 Reactors, and does not miss the 10 that have gone away. Look ahead is down to 50 Reactors or less by 2050. At this point, New Nukes have become: 1. Most Expensive, 2. Slowest, 3. Long-Term Dirty, and 4. Highest Risk new generation EVER. Meanwhile Solar PV has become 1. Cheapest, 2. Fastest, 3. Cleanest, and 4. Lowest Risk new generation EVER. So most of the US is now mostly building New Solar PV.

[@firefly2900]

out of 200,000 tons, only 100 are extremely dangerous, and in the United States, no one wants to work with waste like France, China, and Russia. Is it you who exist in a parallel universe

[@ivancho5854]

Excellent video. I really appreciate that you gave so much time for the interview. Would it be possible to please have a similar deep dive video into nuclear enrichment, the current Russian dominance and how to solve this problem. Many thanks.

[@AnthonyRBlacker]

The thing that kills me about how we 'we' see things today is that we (again, I say we but I'm not talking about me) suggest now there's only ONE solution to the 'world's' problems. I don't see why there can only be a SINGLE nuclear solution to powering this world. Nuclear is clearly OBVIOUSLY the cleanest form of energy production we have to date.. that's about as plain as day. Yes, we had to go through a growth period of trial and error and learning. We have learned there are MANY ways to do this, SMR is a great solution for small areas that need power. We still use nuclear power plants from the 80s that seem to be just fine. We can still build full size plants, but these would be much more efficient than the ones of the 70s, 80s without a doubt. I just hate the fact that there can only be a single solution to the world's problems.. kind of like electric vehicles.. No.. I'm sorry, but we aren't equipped to force the entire country to buy ONLY EVs by 2035 or whatever.. It's just not feasible. We don't have the infrastructure in place to do that, nor do we have the battery technology - at least not to scale as of yet. I don't know, it's frustrating.

[@philtimmons722]

Lotta things are off in that. Nukes are about the most Long-Term Dirty generation, EVER. Along with being Most Expensive, Slowest, and Highest Risk. Meanwhile for EVs -- over 1/3 of New EV owners also get Solar PV for their house and/or business. Since that Solar PV typically does not only cover the EV, but the entire prior load of the house or site, this becomes a large negative number on the Grid. Since most of those sites are also Grid Tied, the surplus goes up to the Grid. So even with all the other EVs, the net effect is an overall REDUCTION on the overall Grid Load. Nukes are like to continue to age out and go off line, with few to none New being built.

[@Ritastresswood]

The emergence of viable energy system architectures for a low carbon world is too important to leave either to the free market or to entirely centralised control of a government in the Western political context. For nuclear to play a part in decarbonisation, questions such as reactor size have to be considered against the context of the evolution of the architecture of the whole energy system. Learning by doing is one thing, but given the time scales involved, you need a plan no matter how tenuous.

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@richardburden6035]

SMRs: a nuclear engineering solution to a political problem, a PR problem, and a financial engineering problem, which is of course, BS, because it evades the real problem. Not even a 1.6 GW reactor should cost $15 billion. Maybe 3 such. It's the public perception that a civilian nuclear accident is the end of the world (yet strangely, no such loud protest against perpetual proxy war in a nuclear-armed world). It's the nuclear verdicts imposed on civilian reactor owners that have accidents; the requirement to put every radioactive atom in invincible, everlasting, perfect containment. It's the Linear No-Threshold Dose-Response Model and the belief that the damage is cumulative and dose rate is not relevant. And we sure need fast reactors--not just for testing, but in the not distant future, we'll need them to address the fissile supply and spent fuel storage issues, as demand for U-235 explodes at the same time that storage of spent fuel that is mostly U-238, with significant amounts of plutonium and more troublesome minor actinides, and also enrichment tailings, explodes.

[@PaulHigginbothamSr]

In fact the reactor shown on your thumbnail is exactly the reactor we dont need. Looks like a small high pressure water reactor with regular fuel rods. Nope what we need are molten salt reactors that have the fuel melted inside to use the other 95% of the fuel packed inside a costly fuel rod. This fuel can be consumed in a molten salt reactor to power America's energy for the next thousand years with all the energy the country needs to transition to electric powered vehicles and ai computing.

[@chrisjohns38]

Or just build existing lwr and hwr since we know how and they work super well for 80-100 years

[@daniellarson3068]

@@chrisjohns38 The newer designs operate at higher temperatures and are supposed to produce less nuclear waste. A higher temperature can give a greater thermodynamic efficiency. However, I see your point too. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@richardburden6035]

I wouldn't base my argument on gas-cooled reactors on the British experience, or fast breeder reactors on the French experience. An important political layer in both countries is acutely concerned to discredit nuclear power, more so than in any other two countries. The heart of the evil empire is in London, while France was the laboratory for the most successful experiment ever in discrediting social and scientific progress, the Jacobin Terror, an experiment directed from London. China's Cultural Revolution and many other such horrors have killed more people, but the Jacobin Terror laid waste to the scientific leader of world. The elites of both countries know they cannot simply ban civilian nuclear technology, so they allow it, but they pull every lever at their disposal to discredit it, and they have thousands of years of experience in evil empire management, much of it inherited from Venice and Rome. The biggest problem with this presentation is the focus on decarbonization as the goal of nuclear power. What about producing more power, more economically than ever before, and in addition, isotopes? And powering lunar bases and other extraterrestrial colonies, or developing the deep ocean, where free oxygen is scarce? Inspire people with the possibilities, and it will be much easier to keep their support during operational challenges. As with the space program, if the people are inspired, they will not let the market decide, but will demand that the government back it! History shows that countries that let the market decide everything go to hell, while dirigist policies backed by sound science, not the anthropogenic climate change scare, or the Linear No-Threshold hoax, or demonization of the bourgeoisie, promote the General Welfare.

[@chrisjohns38]

4 billion $ a year financing new nuclear in the US back in the day (adjusted for inflation). Chump change compared to the trillion wasted on wind/solar.

[@Prometheus4096]

This is actually one of the best anti-nuclear podcasts I have heard. Just 1.5 hours of two experts talking about how nuclear has only had L's the last 30 years and how there is no W in sight.

[@firefly2900]

+10 social rating Comrade Xi approves of your comment

[@mikefallwell1301]

The success of nuclear energy hinges on predictable price of fossil fuels. Germany made a big mistake betting on Russian Natural Gas. The sheer scale of nuclear investment creates unmanageable risk. Innovation in Global Energy Systems will continue to add to that risk🎉

[@firefly2900]

if Germany was an independent country, it had no problems with gas supplies, and if you remember who paid Greenpeace, you can become paranoid

[@mikefallwell1301]

@firefly2900 not just Green Peace seems like everyone had their hand out.

[@Warp9Cat]

GREAT CHANNEL !!! Can you guys do another episode specifically focusing on the potential of Synthetic Fuel Production using Industrial Heat from High Temperature Molten Salt / Gas Reactors. The ability to produce Synthetic Diesel (Carbon Neutral ? ) This seems to be the BULLS EYE. May I also Request you reack out to KIRK SORENSON. The Gordon McDowell youtube channel may be an excellent place to start for people interested. Thank you Decouple Media. You guys are doing a FANTASTIC JOB. This channel is #1in my books. I pass this on to anyone who is interested. 🥂

[@happyhome41]

Deluge . . . of 💯❤👌👋

[@hg2.]

Burn coal first, as long as it's the cheapest source of power.

[@JordanArno-l7x]

Martinez Mark Rodriguez Timothy Brown Susan

[@sokolmihajlovic1391]

A 1400 MW reactor can be also standardized, with already available battle tested existing technology. Everything one can do with SMR's of a size of 300 MW you can do with 1400 MW. The USA needs at least 500 GW nuclear anyway. Why even bothering and wasting time and money with these SMR. Reasearch and development can be and should be done on SMR for niche applications, like powering supertankers or run a desalination plant in the middle of nowhere. But in the next 20 years likely SMR will not be the best solution to replace or better enhance coal power plants. A solid time proven, battletested standard 1400 MW nuclear is the way to go, asap.

[@KReed1966]

The SMR projects that NuScale is developing for two data centers in Ohio and Pennsylvania should prove to be an excellent application for such technology. Data centers are energy gluttons. Providing that appetite with its own energy resource frees the grid for rural home and business owners. Big tech must learn to be a good neighbor and support its energy requirements and not usurps an established communities’ power in addition to getting the land cheep and huge tax exemptions. Residents in Oregon and Virginia are suffering inhospitable conditions due to data centers moving into or adjacent to their established rural communities.

[@Roarmeister2]

Except if you shut down the 1 large reactor for maintenance, you take all of that power off grid. With multiple SMRs you shut down 1 of 4 reactors for maintenance and keep the other 3 running to power the grid. BIG BIG BIG ADVANTAGE.

[@toddmarshall7573]

I really couldn't stand to watch much of this. The reason was these guys already have the result they must arrive at. It's just about doing the contortions to make their case. I don't improve on things that way. A test I always like to run: Assume a proposed solution "is" the existing solution. Now, make your case to change the "proposed" solution to the "existing" solution. This eliminates all the inertia that is built into the opposition to the proposed solution... if it ain't broke don't fix it mentality... of the "whose ox gets gored mentality"... the burden of making the case is reversed... the FUD is mitigated. To me the use of molten salts for cooling is a slam dunk. The use of a continuous process over a non-continuous process is a slam dunk. The use of a non-political fuel over a political fuel is a slam dunk. The application of huge expensive solution over a small modular solution never justifies the gain from economies of scale. We no longer run our plants using a single steam engine driving myriad belts to various machines. We use a generator and electric motors... and now we use batteries to gain portability and modularity further. I can't think of a worse job than having to get up in the morning and looking at another day of generating FUD.

[@BPassalaqua]

Small nuclear reactors are the best for right now because of cost and time to build them in well see how it goes even right now it's thanking too long

[@hg2.]

"De-carbonization"... echch. That's surrender to GW superstition.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

When you talk about economic Nuclear you are ignoring the remainder of the power grid, (the transmission and generation). I am suggesting that when all vehicles are EV with big batteries and rooftop can generate more than enough electricity at the ends of the grids then the grid is free to carry demand loads to the other users. EVs will take less than 20years to be universal and maybe 10years. Nuclear time frames much longer. Grid expansion also much longer. And then more nuclear electricity generation. Do not make the same mistake that the distant renewables make about the necessary extra costs in the grid transmission cost. 66% of electricity at the ends of the grid is grid costs. This is fundamental fact. Even cold latitudes countries have good weather for months of the year. The emergency use of fossil fuels would be a minor matter.

[@redfern_mike]

Your closed captions on this video are very poor

[@ossiedunstan4419]

And some random on KZbin know more than actual scientists. Go back your preacher mate and stop filling KZbin up with bullshit. personal opinion and is not how science is done. personal opinion is the arena for religion.