Is shrinking and modularizing nuclear facilities the path towards a nuclear future? Get an exclusive Surfshark deal! Enter promo code UNDECIDED for an extra 3 months free at surfshark.deals/undecided If you liked this, check out This Breakthrough Fusion Technique May Be The Future Of Energy: ruclips.net/video/jESGiT5HvoE/видео.html
"Based on the current expansion plans, China will be responsible for 95 per cent of the entire manufacturing process (Solar Panels) by 2025" We cannot use solar as a reliable energy source because of high chance of war with China or they just cut us off because of diplomatic impasse.. And wind is unreliable and requires tons of oil per year just to operate.. It has to be nuclear and/or fusion.
@@sumerbc7409 While that is a salient point once again it is greed causing these problem. as for bird strike death reduction , painting one blade black has a huge reduction in the number of birds killed. on the order of 75% or more but it is not implemented because the minor increase in cost. maybe that should be a question as well.
Three Mile Island was actually a bit of a success story. Yes there was a serious meltdown accident but there were no injuries, deaths, direct health effects, or adverse effects to the surrounding environment.
@@HonestSonics Not really. The radiation exposure to the homes and businesses across the street was less than someone gets flying just once from Chicago to NY city in a commercial airline, or NY City to Chicago. I used to work in the nuclear power plant industry. I've seen the radiation release records from 3 mile island. With the exception of 1 year where I had a "special exposure" to a specific piece of equipment the estimated radiation exposure from my flying commercially all of those years was far in excess of what I got working in nuclear power plants (which is tracked in detail and you receive an "exposure report" every year). Funny story: There was a TV Broadcast of some post 3 Mile Island accident on the results - and a variety of "anti-nuclear" groups in participation (I watched this TV Special). Someone got up complaining about how much radiation was released - making it seem like it was horrendous... when someone else pointed out that they personally had received more radiation flying to the location for the meeting than was released to the homes and buildings across the streets from 3 Mile Island. Mr self proclaimed expert emphatically said "do you all think I'm stupid or something" - to which everyone else at the meeting; including the major anti-nuclear organization representatives started nodding their head or saying "yes." He shut up, sat down, and didn't say a single word the rest of the meeting. I laughed so hard... You could not make up how dramatic it was in a movie. It was real life. A reality, is that we live in a radioactive world and you yourself are radioactive at a certain level (and we can put you into a "whole body counter" and measure that). It's predominantly trace radioactive potassium from the food we eat. You will also find that all natural water sources contain tritium - as does your body. 3 Mile Island was a mess in several ways and the Nuclear Industry worldwide learned some major lessons from it. But, it was not a radiological disaster. Biggest lesson is that Containment Buildings work (and Chernobyl did not have a containment building - and the RBMK graphite reactor was inherently unstable at very low power levels - something else no other commercial reactor design in the world has allowed).
Didn't lots of people from said community get cancer related illnesses but no one could "prove" it was from said related melt down? Hell my parents were in a radiation zone and lots of their friends / people they know have gotten cancer at a higher chance thrn people living from another area.
Parents got radiation from a different event. Mostly from being around mines and doing what kids did back then they swam in tailing ponds( super bad for you).
@@historyZZ No: Statistical comparisons showed that there was no abnormal increase in cancer rates around 3 Mile Island - as there is a certain amount of cancer everywhere. But, yes some people claimed that was "obviously" why they got cancer - and my memory is that in 1 case they did not believe it was their decades of smoking that did it). Please note that all nuclear plants in the USA have radiation monitoring equipment at the boundary of the plants. The US Nuclear Regulations are that no more than X amount of radiation exposure to the public beyond site boundaries. They have to monitor site boundary radiation to be able to show they are in compliance. There just was not any meaningful radiation release from 3 mile island (and yes my memory is that they vented a very small amount of radon gas - which is actually a normal process from time to time at all nuclear power plants). Now the radiolgical mess inside the containment building was bad; and if I recall correctly they did not even open and enter the containment building - at all - for 10 or more years to give much of it time to decay. Although they did take water samples from the bottom of containment (they had partially flooded containment) so they knew how bad it was and how things were decaying. Time solves a lot of man made radioactive isotope issues.
At one time the industry did attempt to standardize. The nuclear plant I work at was one of two SNUPPS (Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant System) units built. There were originally 5 that were to be built, but the others were cancelled for various reasons. We share a majority of components with the other plant, which saves time and money. If something breaks, we normally can get it from them. We then send ours to the vendor to be fixed and it gets shipped to the other plant to re-stock their inventory, and vice-versa. Works great! So excited about SMR’s, recycling spent fuel and the future of Nuclear in providing carbon free energy!! 😊
I started reading and learning about SMRs in 2018, when they were being discussed in Europe as the solution to green energy. It's cumbersome to deal with nuclear waste, but in fact it's one of our best options to stop burning fossil fuel. Thank you for sharing this, as I was not aware that commercialisation had already started. +1 for the climate :)
I mean, it’s not that cumbersome, the waste can be recycled and this will reduce the length of time waste it dangerous to a couple of hundred years. The volume is low, and there are good storage solutions globally that could be used for safe indefinite storage.
I worked in construction of nuclear power plants in the 1980’s. A significant part of the high costs were due to the regulatory agency sending down new specifications constantly. Even if something was already installed, they would want it ripped back out and replaced with a slightly different alloy
Revision updates are a big issue. The video downplays the cost but imagine the cost of changing hundreds of reactors when revision changes are made, which they will. Modularity may be a better solution than none but it's still not cheap.
@@jabuki2 Good observation and I too eluded to it in my comment. Faster design iteration, ok, but if something turns out to be inadequate, you off digging out maybe hundreds of them to change what needs to be changed.
Rolls Royce is also addressing this challenge in the UK with a modularised smaller fast build nuclear plants. We have a huge standard nuclear plant being built right now in the UK (by the French Nuclear experts) and this is a 10 year build. But the small scale modular systems are much more interesting as they lower the costs and time to first electricity.
Rolls Royce is using the same reactors it puts in UK nuclear submarines and just building them on land. It’s kind of genius to be honest because they have decades of proven safe operation in dangerous conditions.
RR have everything they need, except for a government prepared to back them. We will, as usual ceed our technological advantages to our competitors. I wish I'd emigrated 40 years ago.
3:36 I think you need to clarify this. There are 413 'land-based' nuclear power plants. The US's naval ships are often also nuclear powered, and as far as I'm aware, there have been zero accidents or deaths because of those. And they would most certainly qualify as nuclear power plants.
9:40 The high cost is the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. People were afraid of nuclear, so politicians made it harder to build nuclear by increasing the red tape, aka costs, which in turn, made people more afraid of nuclear because of it's high costs... which leads to more red tape. Remove the red tape and you'll see costs plummet.
@@Xero1of1 Name for us ANY human designed solution which is perfect. The Luddites of the world assure the "Perfect" will always stand in the way of the good.
Thorium or a small salt-based reactor was something a co-worker said would be a good idea. He was really into this subject. He talked about building these in shipping containers for ease of installation.
I've seen some preliminary engineering schematics & renders for the "MSR-in-a-shipping-container" idea, and it seems brilliant! The "ease of installation" is radical. The idea is to make the mini-MSRs fully self-contained so that "installation" basically means setting it on a mostly-level surface and plugging in your control interface at one end (hard-wired not wireless to simplify security protocols), and plugging in your 3-phase power cables into a dozen (?) outlets on the other end. Done. If you need more power, add more modules. When you don't need them anymore, you shut them down, unplug them, load them onto trucks or train cars or container ships, and send them elsewhere. And by the way, marine-rated versions of these containerized hardened self-contained SMRs would mean that OCEAN SHIPPING COULD BECOME NUCLEAR-POWERED rather than burning the worst kind of oil as it does now. I'm not sure what it might take to refit existing container ships in that way, but new container ships could easily be engineered for container-based nuclear power. It might be the "cheap to procure, easy to engineer, safe to operate, accident-proof, easy to swap out at end of life" nuclear solution that commercial cargo ships have been waiting for. (Imagine the irony of nuclear-powered oil tankers plying the high seas, never needing to refuel!)
@@deeeeeepsit would be entirely self regulating. The pirates would try to break the reactor and would be killed by their own negligence pretty quick. It would be similar to handing a 5 year old a grenade with a big red streamer on the pin...
Great video, and I agree entirely, do not let perfect be the enemy of good. There will never be a one size fits all answer to energy production. This is an excellent step in a great direction. As well, if we hypothesize that our space age tech is going to continue at the pace it has been going, the ability to store or completely rid ourselves of nuclear waste somewhere non terrestrial will make itself available long before our long term terrestrial storage ever becomes a problem. I had also always wondered about the idea of miniature nuclear powered generators for homes, neighborhoods, and even vehicles.
Not sure it will ever be viable for individual homes or non-commercial vehicles but I could see having 1 per neighborhood to power a bunch of homes with some interconnects to cover failures and expected replacements. Of course I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Thorium Salt SMRs seem like they could make things even safer and make some large vehicle use more viable (Thorium Salt SMRs are supposed to be incapable of melting down or releasing radiation to the environment so they won't need to be buried).
I have the same question after watching the video. It was puzzling that Matt explained LCOE and how it is a useful way to compare different generation technologies, but then didn’t use it to compare traditional bespoke giant nuclear reactor plans and SMRs.
(edit: this is a perplexity AI answer) The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for a new SMR is currently upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a typical market in Europe, the US or Japan[1]. However, according to GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), small modular nuclear reactors can be developed with an LCOE of about $60/MWh[2]. The largest component of the LCOE for nuclear power plants is the investment cost[3]. The PNNL report contains related questionnaires developed to estimate the LCOE for SMRs[4]. Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M, fuel costs, and financing costs[5]. In order for SMRs to be competitive with other flexible technologies, capex costs must fall 50% [1]. Citations: [1] www.woodmac.com/press-releases/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-could-be-key-to-meeting-paris-agreement-targets/ [2] www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-can-be-developed-with-lcoe-at-key-level-of-about-usd60-mwh-says-geh-8-3-2022 [3] www.researchgate.net/figure/LCOE-for-SMRs-and-Some-Alternative-Sources-for-Different-Regions-at-5-Real-Discount_fig1_264149505 [4] www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL%20report_Techno-economic%20assessment%20for%20Gen%20III%2B%20SMR%20Deployments%20in%20the%20PNW_April%202021.pdf [5] www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
@@priapulida Are costs of waste storage and disposal as well as plant assemblies exposed to radiation included in O&M costs? Should that not be a separate line item in the LCOE calculation?
The need for water cooling is also an issue in a warming world and the fact that nuclear plants in countries like France, a major user of nuclear technology, have to shut down in hot weather suggests that a large number of nuclear plants, no matter their size, is a poor idea. With the increase in numbers of reactors, we will run out of fuel for a conventional U238 plants in about 17 years. The amount of cheaply accessed uranium is limited. Then comes the massive cost of decommissioning large numbers of small plants. I don’t think using small nuclear reactors is a solution unless they are molten salt or similar and the cost of those is prohibitive.
Agreed. And those heat waves are _exactly_ when the regional electrical grid experiences its most _maximum_ stress too! France summer 2022 and maybe a repeat 2023. A heatwave is a *terrible* time for a big chunk of the power production to start declining due to heat. Ambient cooling performs just awfully when combined with high humidity which often come with heat waves too. Let it be known that heat waves are the *#1 cause* of pre-mature human deaths above _all_ other extreme weather phenomena! Heat just sneaks up gradually on people and can fog the mind making judgments cloudy. We're talking loss of life and loss of economic productivity as business shut down from power outage. On the other hand, solar panels are an absolute power house during heat waves! Since heatwaves always with large amounts of clear blue sky. Texas went through over 2-weeks of intense 35+°C heat and it was their solar power that saved them. Solar power needs exactly *zero* amount of water during operation. Furthermore, solar residential and commercial compound the benefit because those watts are generated locally not stressing a distant power plant nor the grid. A downed section of grid is no use to anyone downstream of the problem when a transformer or two blow from high ambient heat combined with high load! Nuclear power's weakness with heatwaves needs a lot more attention. Furthermore, all the science tells us that heat waves will just get more frequent and more intense as climate change ramps up.
The renewable’s energy company I work for is working on small nuclear reactors to make micro grids. The. Small cities won’t have to rely on the grid from really far away. They’ve also said these reactors have improved in technology that it could lose all cooling capability and still wouldn’t melt down.
They produce 20 MW, and cost about $100million. What I don't know is the annual maintenance and operational costs and lifespan of the reactor. But I know on larger reactors the operational and maintenance costs are a small fraction of the up-front cost, maybe assume $2 million/year to operate and maintain, - assume a 50 year life span, and 5% interest rate (municipal bond type rates assuming we tame inflation soon), this amortizes out to an energy cost of $0.008 per KWH, call it $0.01. Add the cost of waste storage to that and the cost of the land where it sits, and the end of life costs. The storage cost must be factored in. You need to also front enough money so that the storage costs can be paid indefinitely - basically a 24,000 year annuity. My guess is that's the largest cost in all this.
Its important to note that deep underground storage of waste is deep enough to have no risk of ever getting back to the surface. Its incredibly deep and even complete collapse with water infiltration would be safe as that water would not even get back to the surface.
Modern reactor designs can process their own waste as well as the waste of older reactors. Of course, these new designs are being actively suppressed by the oil companies.
At the 3:15 mark when you mention three mile island, I just want to point out that it was FAR from a disaster. A PR disaster more than anything else, the actual amount of released radiation that day effectively has a 0 percent chance of actually hurting anyone. It was a massive media scare more than anything. It showed the way you handled any kind of issue at a nuclear site is very touchy, and that communication and transparency are key.
It was bad PR but it wasn't a media scare, it was sheer luck that very little radiation was released, it was something like 4 or 5 days after the accident that they vented the hydrogen from the reactor up until that point explosion and release were still possible outcomes. A media scare is pretending something is more serious than it is, informing people of the possible dangers even if they don't materialise isn't a scare it's a public service.
@@PeterSedesse That's terrible you experienced the communication breakdown resulting in a panic that never should have been risen to nearly the level it was. leaving wasn't necessary sadly.
@@Styrofo4m NO "we all want nuclear energy" is totally false! The Jane Fonda's of the world have created an industry of fighting any 24/7 base load power generating operations especially Nuclear. More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than died from a USA designed and installed reactor in the USA including 3 mile island. You know "Ted the woman killer" Kennedy who also fought wind mills off Cape Cod.
There's no one size fits all solution especially at different locations on Earth. As he mentioned in this video, nuclear is "a" solution, but we're probably better off with a mix of different solutions.
@@BillAnt There is one, tbh. A dyson swarm. It could be done in our lifetime. It's just capitalism doesn't even consider it, as it wouldn't make instant returns. That's said, we do need something to power us till we get there and it can't be fossil anymore.
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for a new SMR is currently upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a typical market in Europe, the US or Japan[1]. However, according to GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), small modular nuclear reactors can be developed with an LCOE of about $60/MWh[2]. The largest component of the LCOE for nuclear power plants is the investment cost[3]. The PNNL report contains related questionnaires developed to estimate the LCOE for SMRs[4]. Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M, fuel costs, and financing costs[5]. In order for SMRs to be competitive with other flexible technologies, capex costs must fall 50% [1]. Citations: [1] www.woodmac.com/press-releases/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-could-be-key-to-meeting-paris-agreement-targets/ [2] www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-can-be-developed-with-lcoe-at-key-level-of-about-usd60-mwh-says-geh-8-3-2022 [3] www.researchgate.net/figure/LCOE-for-SMRs-and-Some-Alternative-Sources-for-Different-Regions-at-5-Real-Discount_fig1_264149505 [4] www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL%20report_Techno-economic%20assessment%20for%20Gen%20III%2B%20SMR%20Deployments%20in%20the%20PNW_April%202021.pdf [5] www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
I personally think that Last is on the right path with these ASMR’s. I worked at a major nuclear powerplant back in the 1990’s and we were bogged down with procedures and QC hold points, regs and rules and much of it was, honestly, ridiculous over kill. Much of it was indeed needed but much wasn’t. Also, the cost was for the documentation. For instance, a common 1/2” bolt you can grab at a hardware store for an inflated price of 1 dollar, the nuclear bolt needs to have documentation from the truck it was offloaded from, literally all the way back to the mine where the iron ore was mined thus upping the cost to 8 or 10 bucks or more.
What was the sense of this? Sounds like somebody make extra money. In the 90-ies EUropa: A friend running a company, producing thermopaper rolls, first for cash registers. One unit selling price 1,50 in that currency and big quantity. The same paper, for medicine technical devices such as eeg, Labor Printers, so on: costs 18-30 per roll, with less paper used. On kg basis this medicin roll would have been double this figure. Good good business….
These have been around in one form or another for a long time. Would have been nice to see the reduced price tag in comparison to the other technologies. Rural communities in particular could benefit from a small independent grid. Decentralization could also be good to strengthen the grid. On the down side, it opens the door to terrorism with so many more potential sites.
With regard to the terrorism part... however, with SO many sites and each having a much smaller impact than hitting a big power plant, it actually makes terrorism LESS worrisome. Decentralization is usually a good thing when worrying about enemies destroying your infrastructure. Too many targets with little impact. AND a smaller site is easier to secure -- less land to monitor, fewer people roaming around (actual, authorized workers) makes it easier to spot an outlier, less expense in isolating the facility and "walking" the grounds, etc.
Concerns with terrorism: a) destruction-in-place causing local contamination, and b) theft of nuclear material, for building dirty bombs intended for detonation elsewhere. Destruction of infrastructure isn't one of the principal risks.
@@dbf1dware i think these are more akin to the small energy substations that were attacked by yallqueda in the past few years. i think nuclear power’s extremely low death rate has something to do with the highly centralized and extremely redundant safety systems which this system seems to eschew. time will tell and it does look promising if they keep up maintenance and adequate staffing.
@@dbf1dware terrorism works because a small group of people can remove your feeling of safety and security at will. It can show you that you are forever vulnerable. Fighting terrorism is difficult because they possess nothing they are willing or in need of protection. The military does not keep tiny outposts but large installations. Scale brings economic efficiency. In general, resilience is very expensive, efficiencies of scale make things cheap (or affordable). We could observe this during the pandemic with supply chain problems.
For reactors this small, it sparked an idea from one of the Resident Evil movies where a facility sits on top of a really deep hole where if this facility fails the whole facility can be dropped in and buried very quickly to avoid further contamination.
Another benefit of these smaller reactors, to my mind, is the ability (requirement?) to get them further away from the seacoast. This reduces storm/tsunami dangers as well as hazards from rising sea levels.
You could just dig a hole and put the reactor in it to start with; it doesn't need to be on top of the hole to operate. That's NuScale's plan with similar SMRs.
Standardisation worked against France when they discovered 24mm cracks in 27 mm thick water pipes. Between that and maintenance shutdowns 32 of their 56 reactors were down in the middle of an energy crisis. In addition other reactors had to operate at reduced power due to inadequate cooling as the rivers they relied on were too hot. And that was on top of audits showing that their actual costs were 2 ½ times what they had been claiming. Due to nuclear's long history of cost & schedule overruns, including with other SMR makers, I remain highly skeptical of Forever Energy's claims until they actually deliver a working reactor and there's independent verification of costs & reliability. Until then the money is better spent on what we know actually works, is cheaper & getting cheaper, and is far quicker to deploy.
They get 72% of their electricity from nuclear, and they're building more plants. Japan, the USA, China are all building nuclear. You'd rather have coal? China is building those, too.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 and because 57% of them were down so they had 40% of the generating capacity offline. In addition to the reactors operating at reduced power due to inadequate cooling. In the middle of an energy crisis. So much for "reliable nuclear power" Olkiluoto 3 took almost 18 years to build, Flamanville 3 has shown no improvement. Despite promises of faster build times and lower costs. That is literally par for the course with nuclear power. Good thing O 3 had a fixed cost contract. F 3 so far is at 5 times the original cost estimate. Thanks to poor management and construction screwups. Sizewell C is having trouble getting financing because of the problems with the other EPR's So going by that track record everyone else will have built out so much cheaper to build and operate, and getting cheaper, solar, wind, and storage capacity that will outcompete and displace both coal and natural gas well before they could hope to be completed. And once completed they won't be economical to operate full time reducing their capacity factor and driving up their breakeven prices. So they will likely end up being a waste of money that could have been used to built up renewables and storage capacity quicker. And if you think the SMR's will be any different, look at NuScale and Terrapower. NuScale's claimed cost have skyrocketed and Terrapower doesn't even have a fuel source. It's literally the same broken promises of nuclear power about faster build time and lower costs. I want coal and natural gas gone as power sources. I just have enough sense to not ignore the historical record and fall for the unsubstantiated hype making the same broken promises over and over again. Especially compared to the proven record of exponential deployment and falling costs of renewables and storage.
Thanks, Matt. Great to see progress through simplification as opposed to limiting progress due to complexity. It will be interesting to see how SMR solutions stack up over time with the Thorium plants that are being developed.
Matt, you need to double-check your sources. Those LCoE numbers are way out of line, which should be unsurprising given that they come from known anti-nuclear energy organization, the WNISR. Both the IPCC and NEA clock nuclear at under $70/MWh, and solar and wind significantly higher than the WNISR. Also, almost all calculations for LCoE that return such low values for renewables are excluding the necessary cost for storage.
And nuclear power plants only have a life expectancy of 30 years in the LCOE calculation. Meanwhile in reality, Belgian nuclear power plants have been running for 40 years now. And some have been extended for another 10 years. It could've been 20 years according to scientists, but the green party wanted them closed.
The enthusiasm that Matt Farrell has for all of the things he does is the same type of enthusiasm I saw in myself when I was a child and my niece's now when they watch As seen on TV product infomercials.
I think the biggest advantage of SMRs are often overlooked. That is their use for direct on-site heat/power to industrial sites, sites like chemical processes or steel manufacturing. Those have been notoriously to decarbonize.
When high voltage electricity has to be transferred over long distances, as in the big-sized coal and oil and nuclear power sources, there are losses up to about 20%. SMRs don't have to send their output energy very far and will avoid this wastage.
I and other Georgians have been paying for plant Vogtle for over a decade. Price tag so far is more than $32B and we have yet to see a single electron in our outlets. And when it does go on line my monthly bills will jump 20-30% THANKS big nuclear and thanks GA Public Service Commission!
It's only „CO2-free“ if you don't count the CO2 for uranium mining, uranium-purification, the CO2-costs for building the reactors and for disposing the radioactive waste...
Small modular reactors produce more waste and are less efficient than their bigger counterparts. Economically, they're also unfavourable and only really an option when more electricity production is needed comparatively quickly. Fast breeding reactors and their ability to decompose atomic waste with geological half-lifes to a much shorter acting variety, while generating energy on top, is where it's at. These reactors can also be used with Thorium-232 and Uranium-238. India is currently the only country pursuing the construction of such a facility, while Russia is operating two of these in order to make Plutonium.
The USA Built a thorium/U233 fueled 275 MW electrical output nuclear power plant at Indian Point (Unit 1) that went online in 1962. It was later converted to U235 fuel due to economics. The USA also ran the Shippingport 60MW electrical output demonstration/test reactor (online 1957) with a thorium/U233 breeder core for 5 years (1977-1982) which was successful as well. That small demonstration/test reactor was uneconomical commercially and did not meet modern safety standards by the early 1980's (and not worth upgrading). It was decommisioned after the thorium breeder core test was completed. Nothing new about thorium reactors. India is seriously looking at thorium as it has a lot of cheaply available thorium. Plutonium is not breed from a thorium reactor. U233 is, and U233 makes a good nuclear bomb too. Virtually all nations making plutonium for weapons have used SMR sized reactors. Usually they are not set up to produce electricity, but some have been in the past.
@@perryallan3524 You gotta be careful when talking about economics regarding nuclear power. In this sector, economical is whichever approach is getting enough subsidies, so this is a purely political problem. Also, I didn't say that Plutonium is breeded from a Thorium reactor. I said that fast breeding reactors (the molten salt variety to be specific) can be designed to accept U-238 and Th-232 as fuel, since both nuclids are fertile in such conditions.
@@Psychx_ Neither Thorium or U238 are fissionable materials. They are not fuel. Both can absorb a neutron from the splitting of other atoms and be converted to fissionable/fuel materials (U233 & Pu239). Any form of nuclear reactor (graphite, light water, heavy water, liquid metal, etc) can use these materials. It's not limited to just liquid metal fast reactors. I've spent decades in the nuclear industry and have long been a proponent of nuclear power. I have never heard of anyone solving the corrosion issues with molten salt reactors (and lots of materials and super alloys have been tested) - which means they cannot be expected to run for decades without massive amounts of rework. Such rework is very very costly, if it can be done at all. The Chinese feel that they have gotten the corrosion rate down to an "acceptable level" for a potential 40 year life and are running a test reactor on that. Time will tell. As a comparison. Reactor vessels and primary piping in 1960's and 1970's designed reactors are over 50 years old, have current licenses for 60 years, and another 20 year extended license application is in the works. They are actually talking about the feasibility of running some of these plants for 100 years.
@@Psychx_ Something else to consider. Once you are past a demonstration plant - and get to real world power plants... Economics matter greatly and only the most ecomonical plants get built. The USA Energy Administration and others have totally distoted the cost of "power plants": by separating the generating cost with the transmission and distribution cost to the end customer. Windmills and solar panels produce "cheap" electricity; but the cost to connect them to the grid and manage their power output is transferred to the transmission and distribution companies in the USA; and its astronomical on a MWhr basis. On a delivered to a major city basis, large nuclear power plants is the cheapest large scale power source in the world outside of hydro (especially where you have an experienced contractor base that knows how to build nuclear plants). There are studies on this (but I've learned that I cannot provide web links in youtube comments). This is why many countries in the world are building large nuclear power plants. Because it provides the cheapest option to the end customer - which most countries focus on. Here in the USA the extra cost of wind and solar is just part of the unseen transmission and distribution charge part of your electric bill (why my city charges about $0.09/Kwhr when they buy power at about $0.025/Kwhr).
Right now here in Europe we look at NPP Zaporizhzhia in fear. How to prevent SMRs from becoming a weapon? 10 Years ago nobody imagined that Zaporizhzhia would be turned into a Nuclear Weapon one day and now there we are. Tell me how someone could turn a Wind Turbine into a Weapon to put millions in fear of a servere disaster?
Matt, when you talk about the cost per megawatt hour for solar, wind, coal and nuclear, you show that solar and wind are the cheapest. But they are both intermittent power sources that need either backup power generation or battery backup. Once you factor in those costs, they not as cost effective as you portrayed. Unless there is a major breakthrough to bring down the cost of battery storage, wind and solar will not be major players in a stable and consistent power grid.
🤓Energy storage (not just batteries) costs are coming down rapidly. Nuclear is not rapidly demand load following technology, so it needs additional power sources as well. Today's pumped hydro energy storage was built to enable load following for nuclear (and coal) plants.
@@fotoguru222 I am totaly with you on that. I am always weary when renewables are priced without storage (or backup) in theese kinds of comparisons, but as you said, nuclear likes to run continuos to be economical. (even if 50% reduction in output is possible). If one, for example, watches "Elina Charatsidou - Nuclear Physicist REACTS to Sabine Hossenfelder Is Nuclear Power Green?" you will notice that she also basically names all options you would also need with going wind and solar (pumped hydro, battarie storage, H2, Power-to-Gas, Methanisation, gas peaker plants, demand shift, etc) - maybe to a lesser extent?
Nuclear waste reprocessing is also a solved issue at this point. There are reactors that will take the waste produced by other reactors, breed it into more reaction mass, generate power with it, get different elements than they started with, and continue making energy from it all the way down the chain until they end up with plain old ordinary non-radioactive iron. Nuclear waste is over as a concern entirely. You don't need to store it, at all. You sell it to a reprocessing reactor, and they use it to make money for themselves by providing power, and then sell the scrap iron. But if you DID need to dispose of it, encase it in tungsten and throw it into a volcano. It'll sink down into the Earth's core where it came from.
@@williambarnes5023 REACTOR that burns spent fuel. What do the facilities that you list reprocess? Remaining U235, Pu239? What about all the fission products? Do they recover fission products for use in reactors? The WASTE in spent fuel is fission products and extracting any remaining fissile material does not change that and actually results in large quantities of radioactive secondary waste. And do you want to chat about the accidents at those facilities? People are unhappy about the accidents at commercial nuclear facilities and you want to add reprocessing that has a very troubling safety past.
Modules like this, and the one Rolls-Royce has been developing, will become more useful, and more necessary, as we as a species expand away from our parent star. PV becomes less effective further out as input energy drops away, but nuclear fission, and hopefully fusion too, remains the same output from the same input. Closer to home, disaster management is where small nuclear units become very effective - fly in under a helicopter, put on the roof of a hospital, power the equipment to keep people alive. (Do the same on shopping centers and malls to keep power on while surviving the Zombie Apocalypse,...) Standardization is key, so they can plug in anywhere, followed by swapping cycles to keep pulling energy out of what we currently class as 'spent' fuel.
No. People have been talking about this for well over 20 years and no one has succeeded in shrinking reactors (in actual production, not PoC or demos) so they can be manufactured as modules and assembled more cheaply, with lower costs and faster. I was a HUGE fan of GE's (now GE/Hitachi) S-PRISM ( a commercial implementation of the Integral Fast Reactor - a very safe design) and I hoped the AP1000 could succeed and result in many smaller AP reactors built to this vision. It hasn't happened yet and reactors only take longer to build and get more and more costly with worse overruns. Ain't gonna happen. Nuclear will never be cost or time competitive and it will always have the waste and radiation issues IMHO.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 Whole different situation (and technology - not safe in neighborhoods or civilian areas) and the costs are never broken out and most likely any safety issues are hushed.
The thing that tends to make nuclear power plants more safe than other forms of energy plants is the massive regulation that you have to have around them to ensure that they do not fail in a way that could cause a nuclear release. The small nuclear plants have also to be certified before they can be operated this will be hopefully equally stringent. Once you have that it will be very hard to update new features in ongoing updated designs because that will require full recertification. Say in 10 years you find that your initial design has accelerated aging of certain components. I imagine that for a cost benefit analysis it will be easier to just shut that plant down than attempt to fix it. The waste problem was similarly treated as we don't have a problem we just leave it in its fuel assemblies and after a certain period of time we bury it in deep underground repositories. But in the next section they say actually it would be better to reprocess the fuel so we can make new fuel and nuclearly burn some of the highly radioactive products to reduce their lifetime of the waste. Nuclear fuel reprocessing has not gone well anywhere in the world that has done this. The UK has stopped nuclear reprocessing and they now have a multi billion pound and 30 year project to try and clean up the Sellafield reprocessing site. The security issues around Nuclear sites are also never mentioned. In the uk I believe all Nuclear reactor sites have dedicated armed police forces. The real killer for me is that the lcoe is the highest for nuclear energy, if you took the money you spent on nuclear and also invested in energy storage the price overall would be much lower than for a small amount of nuclear power. You would not have the longer term radioactive waste problem or the societal distortions in having to protect your nuclear assets from small groups out to terrorise your society. A case in point now is the threat of an attack on a nuclear power plant by the Russian's. The bottom line is technology has to work within a faliable human society just thinking technology will solve the worlds problems by "better engineering" often leads to just bigger problems down the line. I am not a Luddite better engineering does make things better but often its the mistakes along the way where you learn the most. The risk reward for Nuclear power does not make sense for me now.
there are plenty of reprocessing facilities around the world, most them got decommissioned because they were in operation since the 60's, like Sellafield. the main reason its not common is because it can be used to create nuclear weapons, so the US will police everyone that tries to do it. in the US it was prohibited because Jimmy Carter's anti-proliferation agreements with the Soviets. of course its more expensive than just mining more uranium, but if the objective is to reduce nuclear waste, then the extra cost is worth it. also the modular reactors basically solve the problem with regulation changes, since they are easy to replace, they can just remove the old reactor and replace with a new improved one. Instead of needing to close an entire facility of a year to get it up to the new standards.
I agree. There is a reason why nuclear power plants have been decreasing in the US. They are dangerous. Ground water contamination, air contamination, long term storage issues and monitoring them are just the larger issues. Until all of the issues are fully resolved nuclear power is no different than placing time bombs across the US.
Very well said and more than security risks I would put corporate greed as equal if not greater concern. There is no company under current capitalistic market that will not cut corners and prioritize profit over safety if they can get away with it. All it takes is one decision based in greed
SMRs are the nuclear industry's way of remaining relevant, just like hydrogen for the oil industry. Lofty future SMR goals are being presented as present-day fact, when they're far from that. Last Energy is far from a major player in the space--I mean heck, they're barely three years old? When does ANYTHING happen in three years in the nuclear world?! Bret comes across like just a scam artist, it's not even funny. Waiting to see him in the news soon enough for completely different reasons.
Molten Salt Reactors can use that spent fuel, and the current estimate is that MSR's could power the entire US grid based on projected use for the next 150 years ONLY on that spent fuel.
a point about the dgd facilities atlesat as finland has proposed them, the uranium is stored in metal containers (I think it said tungsten not sure), and they put those canisters in their slots which are sealed in with sement, once the facility is full they seal the entire thing in, and at that point it doesn't even matter if the whole thing collapses as long as those metal containers don't rupture the earth itself is more than enough protection and the rays virtually don't reach the surface. The facility doesn't have to last for 24000 years, but it has to be left alone for 24000 years.
Very interesting. My first concern is Security, meaning the protection of the nuclear material from vandalism and theft. With many locations scattered over a wide region, how do you ensure the nuclear materials are secure?
That's actually one of the advantages of SMRs, since they are already 'casked' there is no opportunity to get to the spent fuel to even make a dirty bomb or security needed to 'guard' the casks stored at traditional decommissioned reactors. The safety and security is cheaper and much more simplified compared to traditional reactors.
I'm always curious how people think nuclear waste is stored when making arguments about theft. If you think it's yellow 55 gallon drums with hazard symbols filled with goo/pellets/ other loose material... You may want to look further than pop culture...
@@ThomasVWorm Or people just like to not realize that a projected rate of failure is a rate over time and could happen at any point in that time... Because if you don't think about it too hard it appears to reinforce their arguments that super low % chance thing A happened that one time.
Are they looking into thorium salt reactors? I don’t know too much about them but from what I understand they’re much safer as they require a catalyst to sustain a reaction and that can be removed in the event of a possible meltdown. Also with the idea that thorium is more abundant, easier and safer to extract, and is more energy dense as well as the byproducts can be reused
What's the projected LCOE for an SMR plant? Unless it's cheaper than solar, wind and storage (after accounting for intermittency), it's unlikely to get much traction, because if you can get the same performance for the same price from a technology that is never going to make you glow in the dark (and I understand the reality, but public perception is difficult to change), you'll take the (perceived) safer option every time.
You make it sound like it's one or the other. We need diversification of our carbon free energy supply and nuclear is so complimentary to renewables due to it providing a consistent baseload compared to the variability of eg. Solar & wind. It makes sense to invest in nuclear even if it is slightly more expensive than some renewables.
everywhere they build solar and wind the price of electricity goes up for the consumer so I have no idea where they are getting their numbers. Everywhere they build nuclear (once finished) the price for the consumer goes down. This is the most annoying part of this debate.
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for a new SMR is currently upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a typical market in Europe, the US or Japan[1]. However, according to GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), small modular nuclear reactors can be developed with an LCOE of about $60/MWh[2]. The largest component of the LCOE for nuclear power plants is the investment cost[3]. The PNNL report contains related questionnaires developed to estimate the LCOE for SMRs[4]. Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M, fuel costs, and financing costs[5]. In order for SMRs to be competitive with other flexible technologies, capex costs must fall 50% [1]. Citations: [1] www.woodmac.com/press-releases/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-could-be-key-to-meeting-paris-agreement-targets/ [2] www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-can-be-developed-with-lcoe-at-key-level-of-about-usd60-mwh-says-geh-8-3-2022 [3] www.researchgate.net/figure/LCOE-for-SMRs-and-Some-Alternative-Sources-for-Different-Regions-at-5-Real-Discount_fig1_264149505 [4] www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL%20report_Techno-economic%20assessment%20for%20Gen%20III%2B%20SMR%20Deployments%20in%20the%20PNW_April%202021.pdf [5] www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
In my country it's difficult to be dependent on solar and wind, because there simply is no room to put them (we are building huge wind parks on water because nobody gets permits to build them on land anymore). Let alone the batteries you need to have a stable grid. Having a few SMR's to fill the gap really is a great option to be fully rid of any coal or gas plants still running.
The U.S. Navy has been using small Nuclear power plants for decades in submarines & aircraft carriers so the idea and the 'challenges' of scaling down, modularizing, costs and safety of Nuclear power plants have already been successfully mitigated / solved and actually implemented into real world everyday usage... How about making a video(s) reflecting / discussing these many accomplishments Matt?
Here in the UK Windscale ranks as one of the worst nuclear accidents (details on Wikipedia). Largely covered up by the government, it was renamed Sellafield by Thatcher as the name had become synonymous with nuclear winter.
“Are there 24,000 year solutions? It’s kind of difficulty to say. I’m going to guess no.” I appreciate the sarcasm, but let’s be direct. No, there are no 24,000 year solutions, and no one can make a cost/benefit analysis that is that long. Therefore, it’s impossible to estimate the danger of waste that is dangerous for so long.
You don't need a 24,000 year solution. The more radioactive an element is, the shorter it's half life. That means the really nasty stuff doesn't last anywhere near that long.
@@LesNewell You give humans 24,000 years, there bound to find something stupid to do with it, with in that time. If the uranium was ran through a MSR instead you only need 300 years storage, your efficiency goes from 1-3% up to almost 100%, which means you don’t need to buy that much uranium from Russia. If you use Thorium instead of uranium, rare earth mining can becomes profitable in the USA even after the weapons material reclassification of Thorium.
Excellent video as usual. One of the best channels on RUclips. Only thing missing was LCOE for SMRs to compare to the LCOE numbers you flashed up for solar, wind, and traditional nuclear
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for a new SMR is currently upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a typical market in Europe, the US or Japan[1]. However, according to GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), small modular nuclear reactors can be developed with an LCOE of about $60/MWh[2]. The largest component of the LCOE for nuclear power plants is the investment cost[3]. The PNNL report contains related questionnaires developed to estimate the LCOE for SMRs[4]. Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M, fuel costs, and financing costs[5]. In order for SMRs to be competitive with other flexible technologies, capex costs must fall 50% [1]. Citations: [1] www.woodmac.com/press-releases/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-could-be-key-to-meeting-paris-agreement-targets/ [2] www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-can-be-developed-with-lcoe-at-key-level-of-about-usd60-mwh-says-geh-8-3-2022 [3] www.researchgate.net/figure/LCOE-for-SMRs-and-Some-Alternative-Sources-for-Different-Regions-at-5-Real-Discount_fig1_264149505 [4] www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL%20report_Techno-economic%20assessment%20for%20Gen%20III%2B%20SMR%20Deployments%20in%20the%20PNW_April%202021.pdf [5] www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
But what is the TRUE cost to society and the planet if we are to believe the Climate Change Nazis that CO2 [plant food] is the greatest threat since republicans defeated democrat slave owners. Notice how the Climate Change Nazis never are asked: "Change FROM WHAT TO WHAT" nor "What is the IDEAL average global temperature and PROVE IT?".
These are being discussed in the Netherlands too now, they can replace fossil fuels and small units powering just a neighbourhood or a village can also provide distant heating which makes these SMRs economically very interesting too, large reactors usually dump their waste heat in rivers, the sea or the air, which is also still common for the large power plants burning fuels.
Integral Fast Reactors (IFR) are the solution. They cannot meltdown, You can also recycle the waste from any other nuclear reactor or even nuclear weapons. What little waste they do produce only need to be stored for 800 years, not 24,000 years. They can be built cheaper and last longer then PWR.
If the LCOE os SMR is lower than solar + sodium ion batteries, sure, great. But the fact that the actual LCOE of these SMRs isn't included in the video, makes me think it's still quite expensive
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for a new SMR is currently upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a typical market in Europe, the US or Japan[1]. However, according to GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), small modular nuclear reactors can be developed with an LCOE of about $60/MWh[2]. The largest component of the LCOE for nuclear power plants is the investment cost[3]. The PNNL report contains related questionnaires developed to estimate the LCOE for SMRs[4]. Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M, fuel costs, and financing costs[5]. In order for SMRs to be competitive with other flexible technologies, capex costs must fall 50% [1]. Citations: [1] www.woodmac.com/press-releases/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-could-be-key-to-meeting-paris-agreement-targets/ [2] www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-can-be-developed-with-lcoe-at-key-level-of-about-usd60-mwh-says-geh-8-3-2022 [3] www.researchgate.net/figure/LCOE-for-SMRs-and-Some-Alternative-Sources-for-Different-Regions-at-5-Real-Discount_fig1_264149505 [4] www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL%20report_Techno-economic%20assessment%20for%20Gen%20III%2B%20SMR%20Deployments%20in%20the%20PNW_April%202021.pdf [5] www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
I would love to see smaller scale safer plants until a full scale / full grid like the Mega Packs used in Australia. That is pretty cool to see. Old EV batteries put to use in some here in CA also
Once the EV batteries finish their use-by date in cars the batteries will be available for grid use in large numbers. The concept of base electricity will be a faded fairytale.
@@peterbaxter8151 How close to that can we be, given our slow adoption of EV's. It will increase demand for them and drive their price up in the short term. Plus there's no standardization of battery formula making them even more rare. I think green hydrogen makes for a better choice for storage medium for off hour use and more versatility to service large machinery operation that can't be converted to battery use. Recycling EV batteries down to their mineral levels to be reused in EV's will cut mining for rare earth metals from unfriendly countries. Green Hydrogen is an infinite resource, rare is just rare with commodity driven pricing. Imagine every home and building producing its own daytime energy with solar and the excess going to the local grid to produce green hydrogen to be used at night locally and sold as fuel for large industrial machinery nationally.
@@IMGreg.. I don’t see “Green Hydrogen” as a solution. Recently Europe moved to define hydrogen generated from gas as green which is a nonsense. Hydrogen is not easy to store because of its small molecular size. It takes a great deal of energy to split out of water and it is currently created using highly polluting fuels and most of it is not green at all because of that.
Putting lots of small MR in serie loses the benefits from a bigger plant. Scale gains are a thing in massive industrial process. The only case in which SMR would be usefull is remote small communities on islands or such...
If they can switch to high temp from high pressure in a modular form they will definitely go a long way. High temp could also lead to burning off the older spent fuel and solve the disposal problem as well.
Several companies are presently developing fast-neutron reactors cooled by one or another molten salt. Moltex is designing a prototype "Stable-Salt Reactor" for New Brunswick, Canada. TerraPower has started building a prototype of its Natrium reactor in Wyoming. Kairos in Berkeley is planning to commercialize small modular molten-salt reactors. And Copenhagen Atomics is pioneering small modular thorium reactors, with a prototype projected for 2025. All of these designs are intrinsically safe, and they breed fissionable uranium from other actinides, allowing them to use waste from existing light-water reactors as fuel.
There was no mention of how these modular reactor sites are operated / maintained, by whom and how they can have the necessary security in place to prevent someone for example using them to make a deadly terrorist attack; obviously large nuclear facilities need sophisticated and expensive security measures in place. Finally, how does making these sites small impact on the cost of operation, maintenance and site security? This was an excellent video Matt and it already had a lot of detail, but it’s still hard to even begin to get your head around how these small scale sites solve or improve upon the costs of operation, maintenance and security without more information on these points. Would be very interested to hear more if you have time for a follow up video 👍
In other comments, the LCOE calculation doesn't include the cost of loss of life, nor environmental habitat. Habitat is hard to calculate but solar farms would be a lot worse than small nuclear. Given how precise loss of life calculations are for different forms of energy, why isn't it included in LCOE?
I assume that these are not molten salt reactors. I would really like to see more research into thorium as they appear to be even safer and less expensive in the long run.
there are plenty of research being done into molten salt reactors. the problem is that they are not as simple as the internet make them seem. there is a lot of problems to solve before they become a viable alternative. the problem is that we have 70 years of experience with PWRs to make them safe and efficient, with thorium we are basically needing to start from scratch.
@@danilooliveira6580 China went online with an MSNR in the Gobi Desert last year but haven't heard anything since. If we get away from PWRs a lot of issues can be solved which prevents nuclear from plugging into existing grid and being exported to other countries.
I believe Copenhagen Atomics is going that route. They're slightly behind Last Energy on delivery schedule, but I think they at least have a working prototype. They just need to set up the production lines. I haven't heard much out of Flibe recently, I wonder how they're coming along. That's Kirk Sorenson's company, the reason we all know about Thorium reactors. There are a handful of other companies on that path but I haven't heard of any ready to accept large orders. There are a few Uranium based MSRs ready for offshore deployment, forget the name of that company though.
Even if wind and solar truly have a similar death rate (which I doubt, nuclear deaths most likely aren't properly counted) a big difference is that nuclear reactors pose significant danger not only momentarily and not only to their close proximity, chernobyl for example spread radiator across most of europe (affecting many parts to this day) and made hundreds of kilometers around the reactor inhabitable for a long time and fukushima spread radiation across the ocean, with wind and solar that's simply not possible, no matter how bad the accident is. We also (as of now) were pretty lucky to never have a nuclear reactor be a military target in any recent war (which is another disadvantage) however given the current ukrainian war that could change pretty quickly. Another thing that's technically not true is nuclear being carbon free and environmental friendly ("green"), uranium is usually mined and concentrated/ enriched which comes with serious environmental destruction, carbon emissions and leave generations after us with an ever-increasing amount of toxic trash. Because of the comparatively short-lived nature of companies and the long lifetime of nuclear waste usually the states containing the waste ends up having to deal (and pay for) the waste, effectively privatizing profits and (long term) costs are nationalized thereby citizens end up paying multiple times (over generations). I'm glad more and more countries slowly abandon fission reactors.
well molten salt reactors don't have that problem since they are liquid fueled at normal pressures so can't explode, if the fuel actually leaks it would just hit the floor and freeze, plus they are designed with drain tanks to quickly remove the fuel from the reactor if something does go wrong.
@@bencoad8492 yes I agree, they are (at least in theory) one of the safer reactors but that only reduces the chance of accidents, all other problems, like the risk in wars, all general problems regarding uranium/ waste and the extreme long term costs are remaining. We currently don't even know how to communicate the dangers of this waste for a civilization in 200000+ years, let alone build stuff that lasts that long... with that in mind I think the only reactors we should really think about are those using waste (without needing new uranium), to maybe gain some extra watt out of it and reduce it's long term damage.
@@Ahnii MSRs waste should only last about 300 years, much more manageable, can't really do much about weapon useage i guess its always going to be a risk.
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for a new SMR is currently upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a typical market in Europe, the US or Japan[1]. However, according to GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), small modular nuclear reactors can be developed with an LCOE of about $60/MWh[2]. The largest component of the LCOE for nuclear power plants is the investment cost[3]. The PNNL report contains related questionnaires developed to estimate the LCOE for SMRs[4]. Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M, fuel costs, and financing costs[5]. In order for SMRs to be competitive with other flexible technologies, capex costs must fall 50% [1]. Citations: [1] www.woodmac.com/press-releases/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-could-be-key-to-meeting-paris-agreement-targets/ [2] www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-can-be-developed-with-lcoe-at-key-level-of-about-usd60-mwh-says-geh-8-3-2022 [3] www.researchgate.net/figure/LCOE-for-SMRs-and-Some-Alternative-Sources-for-Different-Regions-at-5-Real-Discount_fig1_264149505 [4] www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL%20report_Techno-economic%20assessment%20for%20Gen%20III%2B%20SMR%20Deployments%20in%20the%20PNW_April%202021.pdf [5] www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
If you go back and look at the original nuclear plants here in the US they were designed to reuse the waste by reforming the rods and reuse. We then got away from that. Regulations are the problem with energy production, like most things are. People talk about "green" energy (solar, wind) but they are not green at all when you look at the footprint of mining, production & recycling. Nuclear is the most clean. The price is high because of the fossil fuel industry along with the media portraying it as extremely dangerous. take a look at the US Navy's nuclear program. I got less radiation aboard a sub than I did walking out in the Sun. So looking at the price per unit over time, you will see Nuclear still being cheaper if the amount of regulatory folks get out of the way. It takes about a year for a Natural Gas plant to go up and they want to get it in before summer because they will be able to pay it off in that first year or so depending upon the market. I should be able to put up solar on my house but the power companies have a monopoly and influence with the legislation and the amount of hoops you have to jump through are crazy.
Well said. Note the US build a dozen nuclear plants in the late 1960s, approved by the then AEC. Those plants went up in 2-4 years, cost under $1000/KW, todays $. Oyster Creek. Nine Mile. That’s cheaper than todays gas plants. Those plants ran 50 years, some still running.
This really is a heart vs mind thing. if you've ever had to keep doors and windows closed because of a cloud, you get concerned when people wan to do it again. Obviously, the mind understands that relatively speaking, it's a great source of energy. The waste thing is a serious concern though. I hope they figure fusion out soon, and maybe in the mean time we can get by with wind a solar, allthough small plants do feel safer.
Here's the thing: wind and solar may look like a bridge-technology to fusion, but (not so sunny) Germany has been run on 52% renewables in 2023 so far. and solar and wind isn't that old of a technology. most of it was built quite recently. so we are getting there with huge strides. if we make it a wee bit easier to build renewables (i.e. not turning half an acre of wood into paper for permits etc) we'll (probably - just a feeling tbh) be done with renewables, before any new nuclear plant is done building. unless they find a rare species of frogs. then it's all off. the frogs must not be disturbed in their little pond until it dries up because of global warming in 10 years, because we could not turn away from coal, because: FROGS EVERYWHERE! This is so strange. Cannot save the planet, because we need to save frogs. And yeah, what kind of people are we, if we just stomp on frogs! But honestly, we should be in "pants on fire" mode right now. The frogs can come back, once we put out the flames. At least, there will be something to come back to after that. I am rambling. It is late here. Cheers from Germany and good night!
The solution to the nuclear waste problem is to build THORIUM Reactors. They can reburn the "waste" products from conventional nuclear reactors... extracting the other 97% of the power that is slated for underground storage bunkers.
@@ChrisBigBad Basically correct. Renewables are rolling out at something like fifty to 100 times the rate of new nuclear build. They attract private investment and ownership and in the US and other nations there are now renewable generators competing without subsidy. Even individuals can force the issue by buying their own, including some degree of storage - not cheap, to be sure, but some people put a premium on independence. Commercial operations manage with commercial finance and commercial insurance. Given the pace of rollout and the large number of unused rooftops and alternative locations there is no reason we cannot have this rollout and still keep unique fauna and flora.
Still expensive and slow... solar, wind, and just using less power to do more is where the big gains are to be found. Another reason for the nuclear tech we use is that enrichment = weapons grade nuclear material (which is actually the real goal) notice all nuclear energy nation's are also nuclear weapons nation's...
Fascinating, I always wond wondered if making smaller reactors would be better than making really big ones. Glad there is a company is actually doing it...
The Soviets produced hundreds (potentially thousands) of Beta-M nuclear generators and scattered them all across the Soviet Union. These aren't new concepts. When the Soviet Union collapsed these generators were abandoned all over the former territories. They're still being discovered now. Many of them are severely damaged. People have died as a result of discovering them. There's no telling how many thousands of people in former Soviet states have become sick and died as a result of coming into contact with this pollution. None of this is monitored successfully by any international agency. People really need to ask themselves if they want to do this again, only bigger.
@@CraftyF0X With the caveats of the costs down the road. More wastes, harder to process (dispersion); will cost more to take care of... Who will pay for that? (and will it be done seriously at all?) This seems more like an investor lure (lower initial investments because the end costs are not factored in) Centralisation on a few big plants males both problems easier and cheaper to manage as well as being more efficient in fuel use.
@@etienne8110 You'd like to read my standalone comment under the video, it clearly says Im not at all convinced this is the best idea. Matter in fact I criticised this idea from many angle. If you can't find it or really curious I can repost it here.
Only if all other variables stay the same. With SMRs, especially these designs, none of the other variables are the same thus statistics can not be used to predict or even indicate disaster rate or scale. Different design, smaller energy amounts, not vulnrable to natural disasters the same way the others were improved safety features and reduction or removal of human error. For example, of the 3 disasters, Chernobles was a different design and primarily a weapons plant, NOT a power plant. It was primarily used to make weapons grade plutonium. so design COMBINED with human error (not exclusively because of human error) caused that disaster. Chernoble type disaster is impossible with SMRs. Fukishima was also partly a design issue, combined with a twin natural disaster of Tsunami and earthquake. That is why other nuclear reactors have survived tsunamis and earthquakes. At fukishima the primary failure point was the failure of the emergency generators due to flooding. With SMRs emergency generators are not needed or used as the reactors stop automatically in the event of power failure. There cant be a meltdown state afaik. Not familiar enough with 3 mile but it's worth mentioning the difference in scale/size of the reactors, as well as design, aka 50+ years of safety improvements between that reactor design and SMRs. So statisitics can only be use din this case if the designs and other factors were the same or similar, and they are not. So your base premise if faulty.
@@antoniestrydom6367it doesn't matter the design, Chernobyl wasn't a technical issue so much as human error. Someone decided the issue didn't need to be addressed because it's cheaper not to. Can you seriously say in a capitalist market that this will never cross some CEO's mind for the sake of their bottom line?
I have been thinking about this. Why do we have huge grids anyway? It seems to make more sense to assess the needs of small communities and then work out the infrastructure. It also keeps the bloody "ruling" classes hands off it to some degree.
I would be very interested in @UndecidedMF to make a video about LWR or Molten Salt reactors. Here in Denmark we have at least two companies working on these, one of them being Copenhagen Atomics (I have a friend that works there).
I understand that the nuclear waste from those types of reactors also have half the radioactive half-life of a standard water-cooled reactor, as well. Seems like a better choice for mass production to me, but what do I know.
Matt gave the final price but did he ever mention the power figure or the LCOE for these SMRs? Had to laugh at the "lightning fast" 2 years construction timeline! I think "comparatively" might've helped in that sentence :)
Once again, great information. This goes along way to showing that the issue of carbon free energy is more of a shot gun rather than a single bullet solution. But, did I miss what the cost for the modular units was vs Solar, Wind and traditional Nukes? Thanks again, you information keeps me grounded about the future for my children.
My issue with Matt's video is that it assumes use of miniaturized versions of Gen II reactors. That is a mistake since they use the "old fashioned" fuel assembly model. MSR and LFTR Gen III/IV reactors are more flexible, safer, and can be refueled while operating. The SMRs of the type Matt was covering cannot.
@@TwoWolves refueled while operating is not necessarily a good idea with regard to proliferation. LFTR is just a specific kind of MSR. The Gen IV category is where the "safer" part seriously comes in as those reactors use physics alone to put a limit on the reaction and deal with decay heat, not active safety systems.
Problems of SMR is two thing: First is that SMR is too expensive for its power generation capacity (per kW or per kWh base). Yes, small SMR is cheaper to build but small in power generation capacity, too. So economy of scale is against SMR. Best SMR is about two times cost of conventional nuclear or any fossil-fuel power plant. Seconds is that it does not solve or reduce nuclear waste problem. Same amount of nuclear waste for same nuclear power generated. We need cheaper SMR with much less waste.
Running many facilities of same kind looks good on the first look, but gives us a huge cluster risk (like France showed, as they hat to shutdown many plants due to a problem which affected all of the same reactors). Betting on many of a kind baseload power facilities being available at all times can get us in real trouble, like France showed last winter
It was better then Germany, who stopped nuclear and depended on Russian gas... 😳 France was exporting energy, while other countries were in crisis mode
Excellent video! According to Google, there are 11 rbmk reactors still in service. They all began operating between 1979 and 1990. They have been operating safely over that time. Not bad for a poor design. As to levelized cost, another term that is just now being discussed is capacity factor. I'm curious if capacity factor has been figured into the numbers you presented. If not, the adjusted numbers would be nuclear 167 per mw, wind approximately 152 per mw, and solar would range between 144 & 360 per mw. This does not factor in the US estimated 30% increase in transmission line miles needed if we were to transition to a wind/solar dominated grid. I found this interesting. In order for a typical newly installed wind farm to equal the power generation of Last Energy's, smr occupying 1/2 an acre. That farm would need to cover 2 square miles.
Interesting but farming (of plants and animals) can still be done on wind farms if installed on land. The largest wind farms are offshore though and land area required is therefore zero.
yes, while LCOE is a convenient way to compare energy generation, its has its limitations. for starters it only take investment cost into consideration, not other things like land usage, pollution, or other social impacts in general. it also doesn't take into consideration things like distribution cost, and as you mentioned, storage costs.
@adon8672 all correct, but it does highlight the scale difference between the two. It's not a problem, perhaps in western Australia, the American West, or the Dogger banks. It probably will be in a densely populated country with little spare land. That's probably why England and Japan are taking a hard look at nuclear generation (Japan is all in). If the technology proves to be safe and reliable, New England in the US will likely also be interested. They do like their ocean views up there. Besides, doesn't it make more sense to use a power dense, low footprint, very reliable energy source instead of installing 10 times (perhaps 40x) as many wind turbines that will also require a huge number of batteries, hundreds of extra transmission miles, and probably a fossil fuel peaker plant?
Good video, Matt. As per usual. My first question was also as many others have posed, how does Last Energy compare in LCoE? Someone else below has asked about incorporating capacity variables into LCoE and some clarification on that would be quite interesting. However, my biggest question is why on earth are we not recycling the waste (and when I say "We", I mean North America since you mention that Japan is already doing so) and is that something that is legislated against so Last Energy can't do it or is it just to cumbersome/expensive to make it viable? Seems to me that might make a pretty good video on it's own. Thanks!
It is currently not legal to do so in the US, and has been the case since Carter. The concern is that when you reprocess, you separate the fuel into components, including Plutonium. Theoretically, someone could steal that plutonium and make a bomb. This isn't realistic, but is the basis for the legislation. We don't push it at this point as the once through fuel cycle is currently cheaper than we thing a closed cycle would be.
@@chriscragg Hey Chris, thanks very much for a speedy reply. Two thoughts: 1. Couldn't someone steal the waste and reprocess themselves, thereby gaining the uranium? Isn't that why it is stored very securely? (Rhetorical, yes) And therefore, couldn't we just protect the plutonium equally as diligently but without the 24 millennium timeframe over our heads? Or find a good use for plutonium in the next millennium? 2. This is the real answer, then, that it is not cost effective to recycle and reuse so why does Japan do it? They are opposed to strip mining uranium? They don't want to bury the waste in their own seismic backyard? Some other ethical reason? Really interesting stuff. THanks!
@@kentmcneill Theoretically, yes. But if they had technology to reprocess, they would have access to advanced technology and have to be very sophisticated. Also, the ability to steal a highly radioactive item and transport it in a shielded container is non-trivial. That isn't something you do in the middle of the night. The 24 millennium time frame is for the decay of the long lived fission products. Important to note that the long lived items are pretty low in radioactivity. The "hot" stuff decays pretty fast (which is why it is hot). Uranium itself is radioactive right out of the ground. Plutonium is more radioactive, and decays away. It is very fissile and stuff we really want to keep and use in reprocessed fuel (its the good stuff). Japan and France do it, for various reasons. One, its just a good idea to reuse fuel than to have to store it. Two, it limits the amount of uranium you have to purchase. Countries that don't have uranium mines must import it. The US does have our own mines, though many have shuttered.
if renewables are so cheap per MW then why is it when i choose the renewable instead of coal option on the power bill it costs more money. they are missing something in the calculation
The more of your videos on nuclear tech that I watch, the more time I spend digging into it myself. It's led me to realize just how many companies have their fingers in the nuclear energy pie. Like Westinghouse, who made the TV I watch most of your videos on, recently unveiled a new SMR design. They (Westinghouse) also developed some of the technologies used in 430 of the world's 440 nuclear reactors. I'd love to see a video from you going over some of the less expected members of the nuclear family. Like Rolls-Royce and their SMR, or Westinghouse who is mostly known for making mid-quality televisions in the public eye.
One point that was overlooked was the amount spent on government regulations in the nuclear power industry. The regulations are supposed to make it safer but government regulations are not always the most efficient way to achieve this. I worked in a plant that was designed to be operated by 200 people. That was before Three Mile Island (TMI). After TMI that number increased closer to 1500. The personnel increase was to meet new regulations. The reason the LCOE jumped during the study period was due to Fukushima. While Chernobyl had a completely different design than plants in the US, Fukushima was a similar design. The result was more regulation that had to be met by the plants resulting in the higher LCOE you mentioned. Also, the LCOE can be misleading due to the cost (time and money) imposed on nuclear by government regulations. Wind and Solar are both relatively new and have minimum regulations that could change. In addition, wind and solar can’t provide output 24x7 like nuclear. SMR will have to resolve some of the issues of government regulation while maintaining a high level of safety to be successful. While it is helpful that they can be quickly built and deployed, it doesn’t help if it takes years of red tape to get a license to operate the reactor.
I don't think that was overlooked? It figured on the list of expenses - and they talked about it as well, how they intend to streamline the bureaucracy by shipping the exact same product every time.
@@RasmusSchultz It was overlooked in the sense that when comparing the LCOE of the different forms of generation it wasn't mentioned that nuclear is so much higher due to regulations. It was pointed out the LCOE went up during the study but it wasn't pointed out that was due to additional regulations added due to Fukushima. It makes sense that it should be easier to streamline the regulations by standardizing but in the current system that doesn't matter. It might allow some of the paperwork to be duplicated between sites but it doesn't change the years it takes to get the licensing. Or that the smallest change requires the same process and paperwork as the biggest change.
@@craigm7513 well, it sounds like their entire business plan hinges on the system and regulations adapting to this new business model? if regulators insist on meticulously reviewing the same plans over and over for every plant, it doesn't sound like they have a viable business plan at all. (which I have heard some people describe as the flaw in the idea of building small reactors to begin with. if the cost for reviews and permissions is going to be the same plant-for-plant, then obviously the only thing that makes sense would be to build as big as possible. small reactors would never become viable. I hope that's not the case. presumably so does anyone trying to make a business out of making small reactors.)
@@johnfisher3380 Said, "over-regulation is the reason why nuclear power is so expensive." No. The new nuclear power plants have multi-billion dollar cost overruns and decade long construction delays. Plus nearly a billion to decommission and store the toxic waste onsite for millennia. Utilities are not going to order any new nuclear power plants; they're far too expensive.
Matt, I really like your videos. They are interesting and lead to more questions. With regard to nuclear energy waste, what about vitrefication? Has that method gone passé? Also, what about the grid, itself? I understand that our aging grid is a big part of the reason more green energy hasn't been okayed to plug in. And what about microgrids? It seems microgrids could build resilience in the face of a changing climate. Thanks!
While many solar and wind plants tend to need to be built away from existing grid infrastructure for weather reasons, it would be relatively easy to site new small nuclear at existing coal plant locations so that they can use the existing grid and water source for cooling. They even have rail lines ready to help with the construction.
yep building new big NPP is a risky business .. but shutting down perfectly fine NPPs which easily could run further 10-20 years is braindead (see germany)
A nuclear reactor is complex, but nuclears reactors are very well understood and even building the largest reactor is a project of relatively limited scale. On the other hand, building a nationwide powergirid running on 100% renewables is a project of gargantuan proportions with many aspects that are not at all understood and many technical problems which have not yet been solved.
I would be interested in how they priced the cost of solar versus nuclear. To really compare the two you need to base the cost over a 24 hour period. For solar you need to triple the size of the installation and include the cost for battery storage to cover the 16 hours a day when the sun isn’t shining.
The grid costs double the electric production price. With on site production and battery you can save this significant part. It’s more save, because noch black out on big scale. Investment, running , service, depose of solar and wind disrupted already in certain country’s the nuclear. It’s not competitive any more at this time.
I love the whole concepted idea of these nuclear plants but I do believe they are lacking a protection perimeter around it which I was thinking of massive concrete stones or huge rocks that can be delivered and placed around it on site; this will prevent future accidents like vehicles accidentally hitting them or bumping into them and rocks will permanently stop a vehicle at full speed... And since they do cost $123 million and 2 full years to construct, it would be better protected. FYI.
Can we get a comparison video of the risks and actual real harms of the toxic byproducts of different types of power? I don't really mean co2, though it could be mentioned but more things like coal ash, nuclear waste, end of life solar panels, whatever wastes cones from extracting and burning natural gas, etc. I'm assuming that the low carbon newer technologies generally win out, but I'd be interested to see an actual in depth comparison, especially on the coal and nuclear (one I know has created real issues and one really freaks people out). I think that comparison might also be a useful discussion when people bring up nuclear waste.
Literally everything Matt is talking about is undecided. This is Amazing. You are leaving this channel thinking about "what should we do and how to do it better?". Not a lazy content at all
Great video Matt. I’m still on the fence about micro-nukes. But with large scale, the costs of decommissioning are skyrocketing, and then there’s the cost of past and future disaster mitigation. The current Price tag for Fukushima stands at over $7 billion USD annually since 2013, with no end in sight; only a rough estimate of a 20 year horizon to wrap up the disaster. The victim compensation fund (not yet paid out) stands at over $84 billion USD. What does this do to the cost per kilowatt hour???
I think we need to take away from the ending, and not just have one thing! Nuclear will be great addition, but we have so much wasted space we could put solar on, roofs, factories, car parks - and more! The fact that we blanket good agricultural fields with solar because its a "better yielding crop" is just stupid, but going only nuclear would be too - there are still problems, and it is still kind of expensive, solar and wind, and a few other renewables is certainly worth to have in the mix, or to be honest, the way I see it - Nuclear is worth to have in the mix too!
@@Krydolph Agree 100%. Side note, I just read that solar and wind are now generating more power in this country than coal. So, at least we are making some progress. I see nuclear, along with massive expansion of wind and solar, as a way eliminate fossil fuels altogether. Nuclear fusion will likely prove to be the best long-term solution, imo.
SMR's generate more nuclear waste per kWh generated relative to large nuclear power stations because the SMR's have less neutron efficiency. Molten salt reactors using Thorium are very hazardous with gamma radiation emissions during operation.
I have a close family member who has worked for the Nuclear Power Industry. At the beginning I was quite afraid about nuclear. After being properly educated about the different types of radiation and effects on human DNA from experts in the field I am hoping some day to have a tiny nuclear device to power our homes on site. I learned from a university educated Canadian, I believe his name was Crosby, working in Nuclear in France, carried waste products, pellets from the French nuclear industry in his pant pocket! He had a young family and lectured on how he travelled always with a Geiger counter to monitor the world around him. The French reactors left very little radiation in their wastes. He also pointed out that the professions that are highest exposed to radiation were airline pilots! Another lecture was given by a Professor at University of Western Ontario, he and his team studied the effects of radiation on humans all over the world! He said there are spas in Europe that expose humans on a regular basis to ten times the recommended amount of radiation. They did all the testing possible to conclude that these people did not have any DNA changes. Fascinating studies and research. In the end it was discovered that we need a yearly dose or radiation like an CTScan or mammogram to protect or bodies from larger disasters like a vaccination. The other issues with building of the $6 billion dollar power plants is the fear factor. It gets started and then someone gets scared and they have to do another study, then something else comes along to stop or slow the process. The smaller reactors seems to be a great solution. Hopefully someday we will have it accessible for our home use.
The biggest fail in nuclear is that in the past 70 years they haven't built the waste solution, and this new system seems very practical, but it still does not address the waste issue. The problem with nuclear is that getting to the point of generating power has been so expensive that the people involved have forgone spending time and money on solving the waste issue. There just isn't any profit in nuclear waste. If there was, then the cost of nuclear energy would skyrocket.
Waste storage is a problem, but not the extent of a problem that it is believed to be. The actual amount of long-term radioactive waste is proportionately small, and can, for many, many decades be kept, safely, on site. Additionally, a large portion of the nuclear waste, spent fuel rods, can, and should be re-processed into additional fuel. This is done in other countries, but is prohibited in the United States because of weapons proliferation concerns. This regulation should be eliminated.
And the anti-nuclear Luddites will assure no solutions are found as who will waste their time and money researching a solution for something Marxist democrats have done their best to destroy.
The reprocessing techniques have existed since the 50's. Some countries do recycle the waste today, but it's just cheaper and less cumbersome to kick the can down the road and purchase new fuel. Keeping the waste in containers on site for years is not expensive at all, and new fuel is cheap compared to the energy it gives off. There is plenty of value in spent fuel, it's just cheaper to run open cycle for now
11:43 is the fact solar and wind are so heavily subsidized play a role in the cost benefit equation? If that subsidy is not included then that is a very deceptive stat they put out.
SMRs are the future of energy, my mind as a nuclear-qualified sailor cannot be changed on this. I first heard about them a few years ago and it's just the perfect solution to Nuclear's historic issues. I'm all for it.
I’d have to say a big no to nuclear just due to the waste storage issue. That reusing of “spent” fuel, or recycling as it were, might be an idea but everything nuclear is still questionable and no one will want waste management facilities anywhere near people or nature.
If the money being spent on revising and perpetuating old, fuel inefficient and inherently more expensive nuclear power generation technologies were expended on refining Molten Salt Reactors MSR's would provide a safer, cleaner, substantially cheaper alternative to high pressure pellet fueled systems. Seems to me that interests vested in pellet fueled reactor designs are doing their utmost to alter and sustain positive public perception for a technology that could and should be displaced by Molten Salt Reactor technologies. As I understand it MSR's are capable of utilizing virtually all of their fuel as well as utilizing waste products from antiquated, pellet fueled technologies. Given that advantages inherent to MSR's significantly outweigh outdated pellet fueled systems, it is astonishing that designs dependent on pelletized fuel continue to be extolled as though it enjoyed some measure of virtue which simply does not apply.
Here in the UK, the idea having more nuclear energy to the grid, is supported by large number of people. But having a nuclear reactor of any kind, nearby your home or city, would result in large scale objections, it's yes we want more nuclear energy, but build the reactors in someone else's backyard!
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Is shrinking and modularizing nuclear facilities the path towards a nuclear future? Get an exclusive Surfshark deal! Enter promo code UNDECIDED for an extra 3 months free at surfshark.deals/undecided
If you liked this, check out This Breakthrough Fusion Technique May Be The Future Of Energy: ruclips.net/video/jESGiT5HvoE/видео.html
But you didn't include Bird strike deaths on wind power generation. Or whale deaths offshore wind.
Least dangerous? What other energy source has left exclusion zones?
"Based on the current expansion plans, China will be responsible for 95 per cent of the entire manufacturing process (Solar Panels) by 2025"
We cannot use solar as a reliable energy source because of high chance of war with China or they just cut us off because of diplomatic impasse.. And wind is unreliable and requires tons of oil per year just to operate.. It has to be nuclear and/or fusion.
@@sumerbc7409 While that is a salient point once again it is greed causing these problem. as for bird strike death reduction , painting one blade black has a huge reduction in the number of birds killed. on the order of 75% or more but it is not implemented because the minor increase in cost. maybe that should be a question as well.
@@adamf663 coal.
It's kind of surprising an idea like this hasn't happened sooner. We have been using small reactors in subs and ships since the 50s.
There were groups so adamantly against nuclear it was made poison in the minds of the masses. Academia was one of these groups...
We’ve also been using free money in ships since the 50’s, but I don’t see nobody giving me free money yet
Obsolete technology designed to kill nuclear energy. Molten salt uranium reactors are the future
i forgot about that. It's insane how old nuclear powered engines are
It is the level of enrichment of small reactors, a lot higher than a large PWR reactor and they require refuelling more often.
Thanks for another interesting video. If they could call them Atomic Small Modular Reactirs (ASMR) everyone might relax a bit about it.
Strange world full of strange people. ASMR is all in strango’s heads.
I'm betting my fellow Germans still wouldn't relax about it.
Dad? Is that you??
Good one
😂😂 brilliant… but just imagine all the people trying to tap and lick it🤪
Three Mile Island was actually a bit of a success story. Yes there was a serious meltdown accident but there were no injuries, deaths, direct health effects, or adverse effects to the surrounding environment.
I think there are a lot of people who lived or worked around the plant who would disagree with that
@@HonestSonics Not really. The radiation exposure to the homes and businesses across the street was less than someone gets flying just once from Chicago to NY city in a commercial airline, or NY City to Chicago.
I used to work in the nuclear power plant industry. I've seen the radiation release records from 3 mile island. With the exception of 1 year where I had a "special exposure" to a specific piece of equipment the estimated radiation exposure from my flying commercially all of those years was far in excess of what I got working in nuclear power plants (which is tracked in detail and you receive an "exposure report" every year).
Funny story: There was a TV Broadcast of some post 3 Mile Island accident on the results - and a variety of "anti-nuclear" groups in participation (I watched this TV Special). Someone got up complaining about how much radiation was released - making it seem like it was horrendous... when someone else pointed out that they personally had received more radiation flying to the location for the meeting than was released to the homes and buildings across the streets from 3 Mile Island. Mr self proclaimed expert emphatically said "do you all think I'm stupid or something" - to which everyone else at the meeting; including the major anti-nuclear organization representatives started nodding their head or saying "yes." He shut up, sat down, and didn't say a single word the rest of the meeting. I laughed so hard... You could not make up how dramatic it was in a movie. It was real life.
A reality, is that we live in a radioactive world and you yourself are radioactive at a certain level (and we can put you into a "whole body counter" and measure that). It's predominantly trace radioactive potassium from the food we eat. You will also find that all natural water sources contain tritium - as does your body.
3 Mile Island was a mess in several ways and the Nuclear Industry worldwide learned some major lessons from it. But, it was not a radiological disaster. Biggest lesson is that Containment Buildings work (and Chernobyl did not have a containment building - and the RBMK graphite reactor was inherently unstable at very low power levels - something else no other commercial reactor design in the world has allowed).
Didn't lots of people from said community get cancer related illnesses but no one could "prove" it was from said related melt down? Hell my parents were in a radiation zone and lots of their friends / people they know have gotten cancer at a higher chance thrn people living from another area.
Parents got radiation from a different event. Mostly from being around mines and doing what kids did back then they swam in tailing ponds( super bad for you).
@@historyZZ No: Statistical comparisons showed that there was no abnormal increase in cancer rates around 3 Mile Island - as there is a certain amount of cancer everywhere. But, yes some people claimed that was "obviously" why they got cancer - and my memory is that in 1 case they did not believe it was their decades of smoking that did it).
Please note that all nuclear plants in the USA have radiation monitoring equipment at the boundary of the plants. The US Nuclear Regulations are that no more than X amount of radiation exposure to the public beyond site boundaries. They have to monitor site boundary radiation to be able to show they are in compliance. There just was not any meaningful radiation release from 3 mile island (and yes my memory is that they vented a very small amount of radon gas - which is actually a normal process from time to time at all nuclear power plants).
Now the radiolgical mess inside the containment building was bad; and if I recall correctly they did not even open and enter the containment building - at all - for 10 or more years to give much of it time to decay. Although they did take water samples from the bottom of containment (they had partially flooded containment) so they knew how bad it was and how things were decaying. Time solves a lot of man made radioactive isotope issues.
At one time the industry did attempt to standardize. The nuclear plant I work at was one of two SNUPPS (Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant System) units built. There were originally 5 that were to be built, but the others were cancelled for various reasons. We share a majority of components with the other plant, which saves time and money. If something breaks, we normally can get it from them. We then send ours to the vendor to be fixed and it gets shipped to the other plant to re-stock their inventory, and vice-versa. Works great! So excited about SMR’s, recycling spent fuel and the future of Nuclear in providing carbon free energy!! 😊
That was super long!!! But definitely a good ending with the smilie face.
I started reading and learning about SMRs in 2018, when they were being discussed in Europe as the solution to green energy. It's cumbersome to deal with nuclear waste, but in fact it's one of our best options to stop burning fossil fuel. Thank you for sharing this, as I was not aware that commercialisation had already started. +1 for the climate :)
And yet it really isn't. Just ask France or Russia who both reprocess their waste into new fuel. It's a matter of policy rather than economics, TBH...
I mean, it’s not that cumbersome, the waste can be recycled and this will reduce the length of time waste it dangerous to a couple of hundred years. The volume is low, and there are good storage solutions globally that could be used for safe indefinite storage.
I worked in construction of nuclear power plants in the 1980’s. A significant part of the high costs were due to the regulatory agency sending down new specifications constantly. Even if something was already installed, they would want it ripped back out and replaced with a slightly different alloy
Revision updates are a big issue. The video downplays the cost but imagine the cost of changing hundreds of reactors when revision changes are made, which they will. Modularity may be a better solution than none but it's still not cheap.
Thankful for those regulations keeping things safe.
@@jabuki2 Good observation and I too eluded to it in my comment. Faster design iteration, ok, but if something turns out to be inadequate, you off digging out maybe hundreds of them to change what needs to be changed.
Corroded metal and failures in the clangs caused those constant changes.
I wonder what the price tag on combatting NIMBY is for those projects.
Rolls Royce is also addressing this challenge in the UK with a modularised smaller fast build nuclear plants. We have a huge standard nuclear plant being built right now in the UK (by the French Nuclear experts) and this is a 10 year build. But the small scale modular systems are much more interesting as they lower the costs and time to first electricity.
Rolls Royce is using the same reactors it puts in UK nuclear submarines and just building them on land. It’s kind of genius to be honest because they have decades of proven safe operation in dangerous conditions.
And the Rolls Royce SMR's have been working without nuclear incident for the past 60 years.
RR have everything they need, except for a government prepared to back them. We will, as usual ceed our technological advantages to our competitors. I wish I'd emigrated 40 years ago.
great, maybe they will fix their machine shop in Walpole, ma.
Nuclear car when?
3:36 I think you need to clarify this. There are 413 'land-based' nuclear power plants. The US's naval ships are often also nuclear powered, and as far as I'm aware, there have been zero accidents or deaths because of those. And they would most certainly qualify as nuclear power plants.
9:40 The high cost is the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. People were afraid of nuclear, so politicians made it harder to build nuclear by increasing the red tape, aka costs, which in turn, made people more afraid of nuclear because of it's high costs... which leads to more red tape. Remove the red tape and you'll see costs plummet.
Nuclear is not a perfect solution, but it is by far the best solution we've got right now.
You may count those naval nuclear plants though they dont produce cheap energy. War machines dont follow a capitalistic design approach.
@@Xero1of1 Name for us ANY human designed solution which is perfect. The Luddites of the world assure the "Perfect" will always stand in the way of the good.
🤔Then would you also count every oil and coal ship's power plant? No? Why not? Because we are discussing grid power here, not transportation.
Thorium or a small salt-based reactor was something a co-worker said would be a good idea. He was really into this subject. He talked about building these in shipping containers for ease of installation.
I've seen some preliminary engineering schematics & renders for the "MSR-in-a-shipping-container" idea, and it seems brilliant!
The "ease of installation" is radical. The idea is to make the mini-MSRs fully self-contained so that "installation" basically means setting it on a mostly-level surface and plugging in your control interface at one end (hard-wired not wireless to simplify security protocols), and plugging in your 3-phase power cables into a dozen (?) outlets on the other end. Done. If you need more power, add more modules. When you don't need them anymore, you shut them down, unplug them, load them onto trucks or train cars or container ships, and send them elsewhere.
And by the way, marine-rated versions of these containerized hardened self-contained SMRs would mean that OCEAN SHIPPING COULD BECOME NUCLEAR-POWERED rather than burning the worst kind of oil as it does now.
I'm not sure what it might take to refit existing container ships in that way, but new container ships could easily be engineered for container-based nuclear power. It might be the "cheap to procure, easy to engineer, safe to operate, accident-proof, easy to swap out at end of life" nuclear solution that commercial cargo ships have been waiting for.
(Imagine the irony of nuclear-powered oil tankers plying the high seas, never needing to refuel!)
@@Wordsmiths His thinking was how one container can power a city. I heard of Thorium in a video talking about powering a space station on the moon.
@@Wordsmiths I dunno man, ships get pirated. You really want those guys having that kind of technology?
@@deeeeeepsit would be entirely self regulating. The pirates would try to break the reactor and would be killed by their own negligence pretty quick. It would be similar to handing a 5 year old a grenade with a big red streamer on the pin...
Yes Thorium! Less Radioactive! ☢ 👍
Great video, and I agree entirely, do not let perfect be the enemy of good. There will never be a one size fits all answer to energy production. This is an excellent step in a great direction. As well, if we hypothesize that our space age tech is going to continue at the pace it has been going, the ability to store or completely rid ourselves of nuclear waste somewhere non terrestrial will make itself available long before our long term terrestrial storage ever becomes a problem. I had also always wondered about the idea of miniature nuclear powered generators for homes, neighborhoods, and even vehicles.
Not sure it will ever be viable for individual homes or non-commercial vehicles but I could see having 1 per neighborhood to power a bunch of homes with some interconnects to cover failures and expected replacements. Of course I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Thorium Salt SMRs seem like they could make things even safer and make some large vehicle use more viable (Thorium Salt SMRs are supposed to be incapable of melting down or releasing radiation to the environment so they won't need to be buried).
Another engaging, informative and positive video, thank you.
So at $123m each, how would their levelized cost of electricity compare?
I have the same question after watching the video. It was puzzling that Matt explained LCOE and how it is a useful way to compare different generation technologies, but then didn’t use it to compare traditional bespoke giant nuclear reactor plans and SMRs.
On their website is said that the fuel cycle is 72 months with
upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) disclaimer , these are quick web search and not verified
(edit: this is a perplexity AI answer)
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for a new SMR is currently upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a typical market in Europe, the US or Japan[1]. However, according to GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), small modular nuclear reactors can be developed with an LCOE of about $60/MWh[2]. The largest component of the LCOE for nuclear power plants is the investment cost[3]. The PNNL report contains related questionnaires developed to estimate the LCOE for SMRs[4]. Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M, fuel costs, and financing costs[5]. In order for SMRs to be competitive with other flexible technologies, capex costs must fall 50% [1].
Citations:
[1] www.woodmac.com/press-releases/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-could-be-key-to-meeting-paris-agreement-targets/
[2] www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-can-be-developed-with-lcoe-at-key-level-of-about-usd60-mwh-says-geh-8-3-2022
[3] www.researchgate.net/figure/LCOE-for-SMRs-and-Some-Alternative-Sources-for-Different-Regions-at-5-Real-Discount_fig1_264149505
[4] www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL%20report_Techno-economic%20assessment%20for%20Gen%20III%2B%20SMR%20Deployments%20in%20the%20PNW_April%202021.pdf
[5] www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
@@priapulida Are costs of waste storage and disposal as well as plant assemblies exposed to radiation included in O&M costs? Should that not be a separate line item in the LCOE calculation?
The need for water cooling is also an issue in a warming world and the fact that nuclear plants in countries like France, a major user of nuclear technology, have to shut down in hot weather suggests that a large number of nuclear plants, no matter their size, is a poor idea. With the increase in numbers of reactors, we will run out of fuel for a conventional U238 plants in about 17 years. The amount of cheaply accessed uranium is limited. Then comes the massive cost of decommissioning large numbers of small plants. I don’t think using small nuclear reactors is a solution unless they are molten salt or similar and the cost of those is prohibitive.
Agreed. And those heat waves are _exactly_ when the regional electrical grid experiences its most _maximum_ stress too! France summer 2022 and maybe a repeat 2023.
A heatwave is a *terrible* time for a big chunk of the power production to start declining due to heat. Ambient cooling performs just awfully when combined with high humidity which often come with heat waves too.
Let it be known that heat waves are the *#1 cause* of pre-mature human deaths above _all_ other extreme weather phenomena! Heat just sneaks up gradually on people and can fog the mind making judgments cloudy. We're talking loss of life and loss of economic productivity as business shut down from power outage.
On the other hand, solar panels are an absolute power house during heat waves! Since heatwaves always with large amounts of clear blue sky. Texas went through over 2-weeks of intense 35+°C heat and it was their solar power that saved them.
Solar power needs exactly *zero* amount of water during operation.
Furthermore, solar residential and commercial compound the benefit because those watts are generated locally not stressing a distant power plant nor the grid. A downed section of grid is no use to anyone downstream of the problem when a transformer or two blow from high ambient heat combined with high load!
Nuclear power's weakness with heatwaves needs a lot more attention. Furthermore, all the science tells us that heat waves will just get more frequent and more intense as climate change ramps up.
Small reactors do not use water cooling.
Rancho Seco outside of Sacramento, a large plant, has its own small lake, fed by snowmelt.
The renewable’s energy company I work for is working on small nuclear reactors to make micro grids. The. Small cities won’t have to rely on the grid from really far away. They’ve also said these reactors have improved in technology that it could lose all cooling capability and still wouldn’t melt down.
They produce 20 MW, and cost about $100million. What I don't know is the annual maintenance and operational costs and lifespan of the reactor. But I know on larger reactors the operational and maintenance costs are a small fraction of the up-front cost, maybe assume $2 million/year to operate and maintain, - assume a 50 year life span, and 5% interest rate (municipal bond type rates assuming we tame inflation soon), this amortizes out to an energy cost of $0.008 per KWH, call it $0.01. Add the cost of waste storage to that and the cost of the land where it sits, and the end of life costs. The storage cost must be factored in. You need to also front enough money so that the storage costs can be paid indefinitely - basically a 24,000 year annuity. My guess is that's the largest cost in all this.
Its important to note that deep underground storage of waste is deep enough to have no risk of ever getting back to the surface. Its incredibly deep and even complete collapse with water infiltration would be safe as that water would not even get back to the surface.
Are you going to use hot magma to seal it? If now, it won’t remain sealed.
As soon as we have one of these storage facilities, we should start using nuclear fission. Wait...
Modern reactor designs can process their own waste as well as the waste of older reactors. Of course, these new designs are being actively suppressed by the oil companies.
At the 3:15 mark when you mention three mile island, I just want to point out that it was FAR from a disaster. A PR disaster more than anything else, the actual amount of released radiation that day effectively has a 0 percent chance of actually hurting anyone. It was a massive media scare more than anything. It showed the way you handled any kind of issue at a nuclear site is very touchy, and that communication and transparency are key.
Mostly just PR, but I was 9 when it happened and lived an hour from it. We just got in a car and drove all night.
12 years of cleaning for 1 Bn USD is hardly a success.
It was bad PR but it wasn't a media scare, it was sheer luck that very little radiation was released, it was something like 4 or 5 days after the accident that they vented the hydrogen from the reactor up until that point explosion and release were still possible outcomes. A media scare is pretending something is more serious than it is, informing people of the possible dangers even if they don't materialise isn't a scare it's a public service.
@@PeterSedesse That's terrible you experienced the communication breakdown resulting in a panic that never should have been risen to nearly the level it was. leaving wasn't necessary sadly.
@@Styrofo4m NO "we all want nuclear energy" is totally false! The Jane Fonda's of the world have created an industry of fighting any 24/7 base load power generating operations especially Nuclear. More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than died from a USA designed and installed reactor in the USA including 3 mile island. You know "Ted the woman killer" Kennedy who also fought wind mills off Cape Cod.
Honestly, I think this is a good piece to add to the various non-fossil fuel strategies going forward.
There's no one size fits all solution especially at different locations on Earth. As he mentioned in this video, nuclear is "a" solution, but we're probably better off with a mix of different solutions.
@@BillAnt There is one, tbh.
A dyson swarm. It could be done in our lifetime. It's just capitalism doesn't even consider it, as it wouldn't make instant returns.
That's said, we do need something to power us till we get there and it can't be fossil anymore.
So what was the "Levelized cost of Energy" per MWH for the modular units? How did I miss that?
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for a new SMR is currently upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a typical market in Europe, the US or Japan[1]. However, according to GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), small modular nuclear reactors can be developed with an LCOE of about $60/MWh[2]. The largest component of the LCOE for nuclear power plants is the investment cost[3]. The PNNL report contains related questionnaires developed to estimate the LCOE for SMRs[4]. Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M, fuel costs, and financing costs[5]. In order for SMRs to be competitive with other flexible technologies, capex costs must fall 50% [1].
Citations:
[1] www.woodmac.com/press-releases/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-could-be-key-to-meeting-paris-agreement-targets/
[2] www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-can-be-developed-with-lcoe-at-key-level-of-about-usd60-mwh-says-geh-8-3-2022
[3] www.researchgate.net/figure/LCOE-for-SMRs-and-Some-Alternative-Sources-for-Different-Regions-at-5-Real-Discount_fig1_264149505
[4] www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL%20report_Techno-economic%20assessment%20for%20Gen%20III%2B%20SMR%20Deployments%20in%20the%20PNW_April%202021.pdf
[5] www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
I seem to have missed that as well.
I personally think that Last is on the right path with these ASMR’s. I worked at a major nuclear powerplant back in the 1990’s and we were bogged down with procedures and QC hold points, regs and rules and much of it was, honestly, ridiculous over kill. Much of it was indeed needed but much wasn’t. Also, the cost was for the documentation. For instance, a common 1/2” bolt you can grab at a hardware store for an inflated price of 1 dollar, the nuclear bolt needs to have documentation from the truck it was offloaded from, literally all the way back to the mine where the iron ore was mined thus upping the cost to 8 or 10 bucks or more.
What was the sense of this? Sounds like somebody make extra money. In the 90-ies EUropa: A friend running a company, producing thermopaper rolls, first for cash registers. One unit selling price 1,50 in that currency and big quantity. The same paper, for medicine technical devices such as eeg, Labor Printers, so on: costs 18-30 per roll, with less paper used. On kg basis this medicin roll would have been double this figure. Good good business….
Great to hear some positive news about nuclear energy. Thanks Matt!
These have been around in one form or another for a long time.
Would have been nice to see the reduced price tag in comparison to the other technologies. Rural communities in particular could benefit from a small independent grid.
Decentralization could also be good to strengthen the grid. On the down side, it opens the door to terrorism with so many more potential sites.
With regard to the terrorism part... however, with SO many sites and each having a much smaller impact than hitting a big power plant, it actually makes terrorism LESS worrisome. Decentralization is usually a good thing when worrying about enemies destroying your infrastructure. Too many targets with little impact. AND a smaller site is easier to secure -- less land to monitor, fewer people roaming around (actual, authorized workers) makes it easier to spot an outlier, less expense in isolating the facility and "walking" the grounds, etc.
Concerns with terrorism: a) destruction-in-place causing local contamination, and b) theft of nuclear material, for building dirty bombs intended for detonation elsewhere. Destruction of infrastructure isn't one of the principal risks.
@@dbf1dware i think these are more akin to the small energy substations that were attacked by yallqueda in the past few years. i think nuclear power’s extremely low death rate has something to do with the highly centralized and extremely redundant safety systems which this system seems to eschew. time will tell and it does look promising if they keep up maintenance and adequate staffing.
@@dbf1dware terrorism works because a small group of people can remove your feeling of safety and security at will. It can show you that you are forever vulnerable. Fighting terrorism is difficult because they possess nothing they are willing or in need of protection.
The military does not keep tiny outposts but large installations. Scale brings economic efficiency. In general, resilience is very expensive, efficiencies of scale make things cheap (or affordable). We could observe this during the pandemic with supply chain problems.
@@dbf1dware Being hit by terrorists isn't the big problem. Those dry pellets can be used to build dirty bombs.
For reactors this small, it sparked an idea from one of the Resident Evil movies where a facility sits on top of a really deep hole where if this facility fails the whole facility can be dropped in and buried very quickly to avoid further contamination.
Another benefit of these smaller reactors, to my mind, is the ability (requirement?) to get them further away from the seacoast. This reduces storm/tsunami dangers as well as hazards from rising sea levels.
Yes bury it in the aquifer that will stop radiation from spreading🤪
@@Shazza2024 You have evidently not gotten to that part of the video, or just ignored the rest of the video once you found something to grouse about.
They actually are planning on putting these underground.
You could just dig a hole and put the reactor in it to start with; it doesn't need to be on top of the hole to operate. That's NuScale's plan with similar SMRs.
Standardisation worked against France when they discovered 24mm cracks in 27 mm thick water pipes. Between that and maintenance shutdowns 32 of their 56 reactors were down in the middle of an energy crisis.
In addition other reactors had to operate at reduced power due to inadequate cooling as the rivers they relied on were too hot.
And that was on top of audits showing that their actual costs were 2 ½ times what they had been claiming.
Due to nuclear's long history of cost & schedule overruns, including with other SMR makers, I remain highly skeptical of Forever Energy's claims until they actually deliver a working reactor and there's independent verification of costs & reliability.
Until then the money is better spent on what we know actually works, is cheaper & getting cheaper, and is far quicker to deploy.
They get 72% of their electricity from nuclear, and they're building more plants.
Japan, the USA, China are all building nuclear.
You'd rather have coal? China is building those, too.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 and because 57% of them were down so they had 40% of the generating capacity offline.
In addition to the reactors operating at reduced power due to inadequate cooling.
In the middle of an energy crisis.
So much for "reliable nuclear power"
Olkiluoto 3 took almost 18 years to build, Flamanville 3 has shown no improvement.
Despite promises of faster build times and lower costs.
That is literally par for the course with nuclear power.
Good thing O 3 had a fixed cost contract. F 3 so far is at 5 times the original cost estimate.
Thanks to poor management and construction screwups.
Sizewell C is having trouble getting financing because of the problems with the other EPR's
So going by that track record everyone else will have built out so much cheaper to build and operate, and getting cheaper, solar, wind, and storage capacity that will outcompete and displace both coal and natural gas well before they could hope to be completed.
And once completed they won't be economical to operate full time reducing their capacity factor and driving up their breakeven prices.
So they will likely end up being a waste of money that could have been used to built up renewables and storage capacity quicker.
And if you think the SMR's will be any different, look at NuScale and Terrapower.
NuScale's claimed cost have skyrocketed and Terrapower doesn't even have a fuel source.
It's literally the same broken promises of nuclear power about faster build time and lower costs.
I want coal and natural gas gone as power sources.
I just have enough sense to not ignore the historical record and fall for the unsubstantiated hype making the same broken promises over and over again.
Especially compared to the proven record of exponential deployment and falling costs of renewables and storage.
Thanks, Matt. Great to see progress through simplification as opposed to limiting progress due to complexity. It will be interesting to see how SMR solutions stack up over time with the Thorium plants that are being developed.
Matt, you need to double-check your sources. Those LCoE numbers are way out of line, which should be unsurprising given that they come from known anti-nuclear energy organization, the WNISR. Both the IPCC and NEA clock nuclear at under $70/MWh, and solar and wind significantly higher than the WNISR.
Also, almost all calculations for LCoE that return such low values for renewables are excluding the necessary cost for storage.
And nuclear power plants only have a life expectancy of 30 years in the LCOE calculation. Meanwhile in reality, Belgian nuclear power plants have been running for 40 years now. And some have been extended for another 10 years. It could've been 20 years according to scientists, but the green party wanted them closed.
The enthusiasm that Matt Farrell has for all of the things he does is the same type of enthusiasm I saw in myself when I was a child and my niece's now when they watch As seen on TV product infomercials.
thats probably the best explnation of the pros and cons of nuclear ive ever heard, well done Sir
I think the biggest advantage of SMRs are often overlooked. That is their use for direct on-site heat/power to industrial sites, sites like chemical processes or steel manufacturing.
Those have been notoriously to decarbonize.
When high voltage electricity has to be transferred over long distances, as in the big-sized coal and oil and nuclear power sources, there are losses up to about 20%. SMRs don't have to send their output energy very far and will avoid this wastage.
There is still the issue of site approval and adequate security. I doubt if many factories would be approved for on-site SMRs.
Yes, especially for high temperature reactors like X-energy gas cooled reactor. Dow Chemical has a plan to install such a reactor.
SMRs are supposedly designed to not generate excess heat
@@bruceevennett955 That's why we're talking about direct heat.
I and other Georgians have been paying for plant Vogtle for over a decade. Price tag so far is more than $32B and we have yet to see a single electron in our outlets.
And when it does go on line my monthly bills will jump 20-30%
THANKS big nuclear and thanks GA Public Service Commission!
It's only „CO2-free“ if you don't count the CO2 for uranium mining, uranium-purification, the CO2-costs for building the reactors and for disposing the radioactive waste...
Small modular reactors produce more waste and are less efficient than their bigger counterparts. Economically, they're also unfavourable and only really an option when more electricity production is needed comparatively quickly. Fast breeding reactors and their ability to decompose atomic waste with geological half-lifes to a much shorter acting variety, while generating energy on top, is where it's at. These reactors can also be used with Thorium-232 and Uranium-238. India is currently the only country pursuing the construction of such a facility, while Russia is operating two of these in order to make Plutonium.
Time to market matters more currently, it means quicker profits faster cycles like software
The USA Built a thorium/U233 fueled 275 MW electrical output nuclear power plant at Indian Point (Unit 1) that went online in 1962. It was later converted to U235 fuel due to economics.
The USA also ran the Shippingport 60MW electrical output demonstration/test reactor (online 1957) with a thorium/U233 breeder core for 5 years (1977-1982) which was successful as well. That small demonstration/test reactor was uneconomical commercially and did not meet modern safety standards by the early 1980's (and not worth upgrading). It was decommisioned after the thorium breeder core test was completed.
Nothing new about thorium reactors. India is seriously looking at thorium as it has a lot of cheaply available thorium.
Plutonium is not breed from a thorium reactor. U233 is, and U233 makes a good nuclear bomb too.
Virtually all nations making plutonium for weapons have used SMR sized reactors. Usually they are not set up to produce electricity, but some have been in the past.
@@perryallan3524 You gotta be careful when talking about economics regarding nuclear power. In this sector, economical is whichever approach is getting enough subsidies, so this is a purely political problem.
Also, I didn't say that Plutonium is breeded from a Thorium reactor. I said that fast breeding reactors (the molten salt variety to be specific) can be designed to accept U-238 and Th-232 as fuel, since both nuclids are fertile in such conditions.
@@Psychx_ Neither Thorium or U238 are fissionable materials. They are not fuel. Both can absorb a neutron from the splitting of other atoms and be converted to fissionable/fuel materials (U233 & Pu239).
Any form of nuclear reactor (graphite, light water, heavy water, liquid metal, etc) can use these materials. It's not limited to just liquid metal fast reactors.
I've spent decades in the nuclear industry and have long been a proponent of nuclear power. I have never heard of anyone solving the corrosion issues with molten salt reactors (and lots of materials and super alloys have been tested) - which means they cannot be expected to run for decades without massive amounts of rework. Such rework is very very costly, if it can be done at all.
The Chinese feel that they have gotten the corrosion rate down to an "acceptable level" for a potential 40 year life and are running a test reactor on that. Time will tell.
As a comparison. Reactor vessels and primary piping in 1960's and 1970's designed reactors are over 50 years old, have current licenses for 60 years, and another 20 year extended license application is in the works. They are actually talking about the feasibility of running some of these plants for 100 years.
@@Psychx_ Something else to consider. Once you are past a demonstration plant - and get to real world power plants... Economics matter greatly and only the most ecomonical plants get built.
The USA Energy Administration and others have totally distoted the cost of "power plants": by separating the generating cost with the transmission and distribution cost to the end customer. Windmills and solar panels produce "cheap" electricity; but the cost to connect them to the grid and manage their power output is transferred to the transmission and distribution companies in the USA; and its astronomical on a MWhr basis.
On a delivered to a major city basis, large nuclear power plants is the cheapest large scale power source in the world outside of hydro (especially where you have an experienced contractor base that knows how to build nuclear plants). There are studies on this (but I've learned that I cannot provide web links in youtube comments).
This is why many countries in the world are building large nuclear power plants. Because it provides the cheapest option to the end customer - which most countries focus on. Here in the USA the extra cost of wind and solar is just part of the unseen transmission and distribution charge part of your electric bill (why my city charges about $0.09/Kwhr when they buy power at about $0.025/Kwhr).
Right now here in Europe we look at NPP Zaporizhzhia in fear. How to prevent SMRs from becoming a weapon? 10 Years ago nobody imagined that Zaporizhzhia would be turned into a Nuclear Weapon one day and now there we are. Tell me how someone could turn a Wind Turbine into a Weapon to put millions in fear of a servere disaster?
Matt, when you talk about the cost per megawatt hour for solar, wind, coal and nuclear, you show that solar and wind are the cheapest. But they are both intermittent power sources that need either backup power generation or battery backup. Once you factor in those costs, they not as cost effective as you portrayed. Unless there is a major breakthrough to bring down the cost of battery storage, wind and solar will not be major players in a stable and consistent power grid.
🤓Energy storage (not just batteries) costs are coming down rapidly. Nuclear is not rapidly demand load following technology, so it needs additional power sources as well. Today's pumped hydro energy storage was built to enable load following for nuclear (and coal) plants.
@@fotoguru222 I am totaly with you on that. I am always weary when renewables are priced without storage (or backup) in theese kinds of comparisons, but as you said, nuclear likes to run continuos to be economical. (even if 50% reduction in output is possible).
If one, for example, watches "Elina Charatsidou - Nuclear Physicist REACTS to Sabine Hossenfelder Is Nuclear Power Green?" you will notice that she also basically names all options you would also need with going wind and solar (pumped hydro, battarie storage, H2, Power-to-Gas, Methanisation, gas peaker plants, demand shift, etc) - maybe to a lesser extent?
Nuclear waste reprocessing is also a solved issue at this point. There are reactors that will take the waste produced by other reactors, breed it into more reaction mass, generate power with it, get different elements than they started with, and continue making energy from it all the way down the chain until they end up with plain old ordinary non-radioactive iron. Nuclear waste is over as a concern entirely. You don't need to store it, at all. You sell it to a reprocessing reactor, and they use it to make money for themselves by providing power, and then sell the scrap iron.
But if you DID need to dispose of it, encase it in tungsten and throw it into a volcano. It'll sink down into the Earth's core where it came from.
Name one ?
@@clarkkent9080 ...name one what? Nuclear waste reprocessing plant?
Plant 404, CEA APM, UP-2-800, UP-3, Trombay, Tarapur, Kalpakam, Tarapur, Rokkasho, New Labs, Khushab Nuclear Complex, Plant BBRT-1, RT-2.
@@williambarnes5023 REACTOR that burns spent fuel.
What do the facilities that you list reprocess? Remaining U235, Pu239? What about all the fission products? Do they recover fission products for use in reactors?
The WASTE in spent fuel is fission products and extracting any remaining fissile material does not change that and actually results in large quantities of radioactive secondary waste. And do you want to chat about the accidents at those facilities? People are unhappy about the accidents at commercial nuclear facilities and you want to add reprocessing that has a very troubling safety past.
Modules like this, and the one Rolls-Royce has been developing, will become more useful, and more necessary, as we as a species expand away from our parent star. PV becomes less effective further out as input energy drops away, but nuclear fission, and hopefully fusion too, remains the same output from the same input.
Closer to home, disaster management is where small nuclear units become very effective - fly in under a helicopter, put on the roof of a hospital, power the equipment to keep people alive. (Do the same on shopping centers and malls to keep power on while surviving the Zombie Apocalypse,...)
Standardization is key, so they can plug in anywhere, followed by swapping cycles to keep pulling energy out of what we currently class as 'spent' fuel.
No. People have been talking about this for well over 20 years and no one has succeeded in shrinking reactors (in actual production, not PoC or demos) so they can be manufactured as modules and assembled more cheaply, with lower costs and faster. I was a HUGE fan of GE's (now GE/Hitachi) S-PRISM ( a commercial implementation of the Integral Fast Reactor - a very safe design) and I hoped the AP1000 could succeed and result in many smaller AP reactors built to this vision. It hasn't happened yet and reactors only take longer to build and get more and more costly with worse overruns.
Ain't gonna happen. Nuclear will never be cost or time competitive and it will always have the waste and radiation issues IMHO.
LOL. There are no nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers, right?
@@scottslotterbeck3796 Whole different situation (and technology - not safe in neighborhoods or civilian areas) and the costs are never broken out and most likely any safety issues are hushed.
The thing that tends to make nuclear power plants more safe than other forms of energy plants is the massive regulation that you have to have around them to ensure that they do not fail in a way that could cause a nuclear release. The small nuclear plants have also to be certified before they can be operated this will be hopefully equally stringent. Once you have that it will be very hard to update new features in ongoing updated designs because that will require full recertification. Say in 10 years you find that your initial design has accelerated aging of certain components. I imagine that for a cost benefit analysis it will be easier to just shut that plant down than attempt to fix it. The waste problem was similarly treated as we don't have a problem we just leave it in its fuel assemblies and after a certain period of time we bury it in deep underground repositories. But in the next section they say actually it would be better to reprocess the fuel so we can make new fuel and nuclearly burn some of the highly radioactive products to reduce their lifetime of the waste. Nuclear fuel reprocessing has not gone well anywhere in the world that has done this. The UK has stopped nuclear reprocessing and they now have a multi billion pound and 30 year project to try and clean up the Sellafield reprocessing site. The security issues around Nuclear sites are also never mentioned. In the uk I believe all Nuclear reactor sites have dedicated armed police forces. The real killer for me is that the lcoe is the highest for nuclear energy, if you took the money you spent on nuclear and also invested in energy storage the price overall would be much lower than for a small amount of nuclear power. You would not have the longer term radioactive waste problem or the societal distortions in having to protect your nuclear assets from small groups out to terrorise your society. A case in point now is the threat of an attack on a nuclear power plant by the Russian's. The bottom line is technology has to work within a faliable human society just thinking technology will solve the worlds problems by "better engineering" often leads to just bigger problems down the line. I am not a Luddite better engineering does make things better but often its the mistakes along the way where you learn the most. The risk reward for Nuclear power does not make sense for me now.
Local vandals and terrorists will crash cars into these things left and right
If the russians wanted to do a nuclear attack, it'd be far easier and more effective to just launch a purpose built dirty bomb.
there are plenty of reprocessing facilities around the world, most them got decommissioned because they were in operation since the 60's, like Sellafield. the main reason its not common is because it can be used to create nuclear weapons, so the US will police everyone that tries to do it. in the US it was prohibited because Jimmy Carter's anti-proliferation agreements with the Soviets. of course its more expensive than just mining more uranium, but if the objective is to reduce nuclear waste, then the extra cost is worth it.
also the modular reactors basically solve the problem with regulation changes, since they are easy to replace, they can just remove the old reactor and replace with a new improved one. Instead of needing to close an entire facility of a year to get it up to the new standards.
I agree. There is a reason why nuclear power plants have been decreasing in the US. They are dangerous. Ground water contamination, air contamination, long term storage issues and monitoring them are just the larger issues. Until all of the issues are fully resolved nuclear power is no different than placing time bombs across the US.
Very well said and more than security risks I would put corporate greed as equal if not greater concern. There is no company under current capitalistic market that will not cut corners and prioritize profit over safety if they can get away with it. All it takes is one decision based in greed
I am so hyped for this. I am so looking forward towards how they and others like them will impact the future of energy.
Why does their CEO BRET not make me feel safe?
Why are you hyped for this? Do you work in this industry?
@@garfreld "...impact the future of energy" it's in the second sentence, learn to read.
@@Joe-Dead Why is he hyped about the future of energy is the question, maybe you should learn to read.
SMRs are the nuclear industry's way of remaining relevant, just like hydrogen for the oil industry. Lofty future SMR goals are being presented as present-day fact, when they're far from that. Last Energy is far from a major player in the space--I mean heck, they're barely three years old? When does ANYTHING happen in three years in the nuclear world?! Bret comes across like just a scam artist, it's not even funny. Waiting to see him in the news soon enough for completely different reasons.
Molten Salt Reactors can use that spent fuel, and the current estimate is that MSR's could power the entire US grid based on projected use for the next 150 years ONLY on that spent fuel.
a point about the dgd facilities atlesat as finland has proposed them, the uranium is stored in metal containers (I think it said tungsten not sure), and they put those canisters in their slots which are sealed in with sement, once the facility is full they seal the entire thing in, and at that point it doesn't even matter if the whole thing collapses as long as those metal containers don't rupture the earth itself is more than enough protection and the rays virtually don't reach the surface. The facility doesn't have to last for 24000 years, but it has to be left alone for 24000 years.
Very interesting. My first concern is Security, meaning the protection of the nuclear material from vandalism and theft. With many locations scattered over a wide region, how do you ensure the nuclear materials are secure?
That's actually one of the advantages of SMRs, since they are already 'casked' there is no opportunity to get to the spent fuel to even make a dirty bomb or security needed to 'guard' the casks stored at traditional decommissioned reactors. The safety and security is cheaper and much more simplified compared to traditional reactors.
There is not as much material, and how many people could deal it it?
Build them on pre existing armed forces bases all over the country, for guaranteed safe protection by heavily armed soldier's.
I'm always curious how people think nuclear waste is stored when making arguments about theft. If you think it's yellow 55 gallon drums with hazard symbols filled with goo/pellets/ other loose material... You may want to look further than pop culture...
@@ThomasVWorm Or people just like to not realize that a projected rate of failure is a rate over time and could happen at any point in that time... Because if you don't think about it too hard it appears to reinforce their arguments that super low % chance thing A happened that one time.
Are they looking into thorium salt reactors? I don’t know too much about them but from what I understand they’re much safer as they require a catalyst to sustain a reaction and that can be removed in the event of a possible meltdown. Also with the idea that thorium is more abundant, easier and safer to extract, and is more energy dense as well as the byproducts can be reused
Molten Salt Reactors are still experimental. They have corrosion problems that need to be addressed before being viable.
What's the projected LCOE for an SMR plant?
Unless it's cheaper than solar, wind and storage (after accounting for intermittency), it's unlikely to get much traction, because if you can get the same performance for the same price from a technology that is never going to make you glow in the dark (and I understand the reality, but public perception is difficult to change), you'll take the (perceived) safer option every time.
You make it sound like it's one or the other.
We need diversification of our carbon free energy supply and nuclear is so complimentary to renewables due to it providing a consistent baseload compared to the variability of eg. Solar & wind. It makes sense to invest in nuclear even if it is slightly more expensive than some renewables.
everywhere they build solar and wind the price of electricity goes up for the consumer so I have no idea where they are getting their numbers. Everywhere they build nuclear (once finished) the price for the consumer goes down. This is the most annoying part of this debate.
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for a new SMR is currently upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a typical market in Europe, the US or Japan[1]. However, according to GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), small modular nuclear reactors can be developed with an LCOE of about $60/MWh[2]. The largest component of the LCOE for nuclear power plants is the investment cost[3]. The PNNL report contains related questionnaires developed to estimate the LCOE for SMRs[4]. Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M, fuel costs, and financing costs[5]. In order for SMRs to be competitive with other flexible technologies, capex costs must fall 50% [1].
Citations:
[1] www.woodmac.com/press-releases/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-could-be-key-to-meeting-paris-agreement-targets/
[2] www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-can-be-developed-with-lcoe-at-key-level-of-about-usd60-mwh-says-geh-8-3-2022
[3] www.researchgate.net/figure/LCOE-for-SMRs-and-Some-Alternative-Sources-for-Different-Regions-at-5-Real-Discount_fig1_264149505
[4] www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL%20report_Techno-economic%20assessment%20for%20Gen%20III%2B%20SMR%20Deployments%20in%20the%20PNW_April%202021.pdf
[5] www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
@@priapulidahow are you able to post links???
In my country it's difficult to be dependent on solar and wind, because there simply is no room to put them (we are building huge wind parks on water because nobody gets permits to build them on land anymore). Let alone the batteries you need to have a stable grid. Having a few SMR's to fill the gap really is a great option to be fully rid of any coal or gas plants still running.
The U.S. Navy has been using small Nuclear power plants for decades in submarines & aircraft carriers so the idea and the 'challenges' of scaling down, modularizing, costs and safety of Nuclear power plants have already been successfully mitigated / solved and actually implemented into real world everyday usage... How about making a video(s) reflecting / discussing these many accomplishments Matt?
Thanks!
great video. We're looking to build parts of the modular nuclear reactor industry. Let's get going!
Thanks so much!
Here in the UK Windscale ranks as one of the worst nuclear accidents (details on Wikipedia). Largely covered up by the government, it was renamed Sellafield by Thatcher as the name had become synonymous with nuclear winter.
“Are there 24,000 year solutions? It’s kind of difficulty to say. I’m going to guess no.” I appreciate the sarcasm, but let’s be direct. No, there are no 24,000 year solutions, and no one can make a cost/benefit analysis that is that long. Therefore, it’s impossible to estimate the danger of waste that is dangerous for so long.
👍
You don't need a 24,000 year solution. The more radioactive an element is, the shorter it's half life. That means the really nasty stuff doesn't last anywhere near that long.
@@LesNewell
You give humans 24,000 years, there bound to find something stupid to do with it, with in that time.
If the uranium was ran through a MSR instead you only need 300 years storage, your efficiency goes from 1-3% up to almost 100%, which means you don’t need to buy that much uranium from Russia.
If you use Thorium instead of uranium, rare earth mining can becomes profitable in the USA even after the weapons material reclassification of Thorium.
Excellent video as usual. One of the best channels on RUclips. Only thing missing was LCOE for SMRs to compare to the LCOE numbers you flashed up for solar, wind, and traditional nuclear
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for a new SMR is currently upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a typical market in Europe, the US or Japan[1]. However, according to GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), small modular nuclear reactors can be developed with an LCOE of about $60/MWh[2]. The largest component of the LCOE for nuclear power plants is the investment cost[3]. The PNNL report contains related questionnaires developed to estimate the LCOE for SMRs[4]. Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M, fuel costs, and financing costs[5]. In order for SMRs to be competitive with other flexible technologies, capex costs must fall 50% [1].
Citations:
[1] www.woodmac.com/press-releases/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-could-be-key-to-meeting-paris-agreement-targets/
[2] www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-can-be-developed-with-lcoe-at-key-level-of-about-usd60-mwh-says-geh-8-3-2022
[3] www.researchgate.net/figure/LCOE-for-SMRs-and-Some-Alternative-Sources-for-Different-Regions-at-5-Real-Discount_fig1_264149505
[4] www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL%20report_Techno-economic%20assessment%20for%20Gen%20III%2B%20SMR%20Deployments%20in%20the%20PNW_April%202021.pdf
[5] www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) but rumor to drop as it becomes a industry standard
@@paperburn US$120 is very optimistic. More like a marketing pitch to attract investors.
@@QazzaAU You're really trying ecerything, right?
BTW LCOEs don't include waste management.
But what is the TRUE cost to society and the planet if we are to believe the Climate Change Nazis that CO2 [plant food] is the greatest threat since republicans defeated democrat slave owners. Notice how the Climate Change Nazis never are asked: "Change FROM WHAT TO WHAT" nor "What is the IDEAL average global temperature and PROVE IT?".
These are being discussed in the Netherlands too now, they can replace fossil fuels and small units powering just a neighbourhood or a village can also provide distant heating which makes these SMRs economically very interesting too, large reactors usually dump their waste heat in rivers, the sea or the air, which is also still common for the large power plants burning fuels.
Integral Fast Reactors (IFR) are the solution. They cannot meltdown, You can also recycle the waste from any other nuclear reactor or even nuclear weapons. What little waste they do produce only need to be stored for 800 years, not 24,000 years. They can be built cheaper and last longer then PWR.
If the LCOE os SMR is lower than solar + sodium ion batteries, sure, great. But the fact that the actual LCOE of these SMRs isn't included in the video, makes me think it's still quite expensive
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for a new SMR is currently upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a typical market in Europe, the US or Japan[1]. However, according to GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), small modular nuclear reactors can be developed with an LCOE of about $60/MWh[2]. The largest component of the LCOE for nuclear power plants is the investment cost[3]. The PNNL report contains related questionnaires developed to estimate the LCOE for SMRs[4]. Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M, fuel costs, and financing costs[5]. In order for SMRs to be competitive with other flexible technologies, capex costs must fall 50% [1].
Citations:
[1] www.woodmac.com/press-releases/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-could-be-key-to-meeting-paris-agreement-targets/
[2] www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-can-be-developed-with-lcoe-at-key-level-of-about-usd60-mwh-says-geh-8-3-2022
[3] www.researchgate.net/figure/LCOE-for-SMRs-and-Some-Alternative-Sources-for-Different-Regions-at-5-Real-Discount_fig1_264149505
[4] www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL%20report_Techno-economic%20assessment%20for%20Gen%20III%2B%20SMR%20Deployments%20in%20the%20PNW_April%202021.pdf
[5] www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
I would love to see smaller scale safer plants until a full scale / full grid like the Mega Packs used in Australia. That is pretty cool to see. Old EV batteries put to use in some here in CA also
Once the EV batteries finish their use-by date in cars the batteries will be available for grid use in large numbers. The concept of base electricity will be a faded fairytale.
@@peterbaxter8151 How close to that can we be, given our slow adoption of EV's.
It will increase demand for them and drive their price up in the short term.
Plus there's no standardization of battery formula making them even more rare.
I think green hydrogen makes for a better choice for storage medium for off hour use and more versatility to service large machinery operation that can't be converted to battery use.
Recycling EV batteries down to their mineral levels to be reused in EV's will cut mining for rare earth metals from unfriendly countries.
Green Hydrogen is an infinite resource, rare is just rare with commodity driven pricing.
Imagine every home and building producing its own daytime energy with solar and the excess going to the local grid to produce green hydrogen to be used at night locally and sold as fuel for large industrial machinery nationally.
@@IMGreg.. I don’t see “Green Hydrogen” as a solution. Recently Europe moved to define hydrogen generated from gas as green which is a nonsense. Hydrogen is not easy to store because of its small molecular size. It takes a great deal of energy to split out of water and it is currently created using highly polluting fuels and most of it is not green at all because of that.
Putting lots of small MR in serie loses the benefits from a bigger plant. Scale gains are a thing in massive industrial process.
The only case in which SMR would be usefull is remote small communities on islands or such...
Just have a look to Tesla last investors day presentation. Exactly what they layed out.
If they can switch to high temp from high pressure in a modular form they will definitely go a long way.
High temp could also lead to burning off the older spent fuel and solve the disposal problem as well.
Several companies are presently developing fast-neutron reactors cooled by one or another molten salt. Moltex is designing a prototype "Stable-Salt Reactor" for New Brunswick, Canada. TerraPower has started building a prototype of its Natrium reactor in Wyoming. Kairos in Berkeley is planning to commercialize small modular molten-salt reactors. And Copenhagen Atomics is pioneering small modular thorium reactors, with a prototype projected for 2025. All of these designs are intrinsically safe, and they breed fissionable uranium from other actinides, allowing them to use waste from existing light-water reactors as fuel.
There was no mention of how these modular reactor sites are operated / maintained, by whom and how they can have the necessary security in place to prevent someone for example using them to make a deadly terrorist attack; obviously large nuclear facilities need sophisticated and expensive security measures in place. Finally, how does making these sites small impact on the cost of operation, maintenance and site security? This was an excellent video Matt and it already had a lot of detail, but it’s still hard to even begin to get your head around how these small scale sites solve or improve upon the costs of operation, maintenance and security without more information on these points. Would be very interested to hear more if you have time for a follow up video 👍
In other comments, the LCOE calculation doesn't include the cost of loss of life, nor environmental habitat. Habitat is hard to calculate but solar farms would be a lot worse than small nuclear. Given how precise loss of life calculations are for different forms of energy, why isn't it included in LCOE?
I assume that these are not molten salt reactors. I would really like to see more research into thorium as they appear to be even safer and less expensive in the long run.
there are plenty of research being done into molten salt reactors. the problem is that they are not as simple as the internet make them seem. there is a lot of problems to solve before they become a viable alternative. the problem is that we have 70 years of experience with PWRs to make them safe and efficient, with thorium we are basically needing to start from scratch.
I think the biggest hurdle from what I understand with molten salt is corrosion.
@@danilooliveira6580 China went online with an MSNR in the Gobi Desert last year but haven't heard anything since. If we get away from PWRs a lot of issues can be solved which prevents nuclear from plugging into existing grid and being exported to other countries.
I believe Copenhagen Atomics is going that route. They're slightly behind Last Energy on delivery schedule, but I think they at least have a working prototype. They just need to set up the production lines. I haven't heard much out of Flibe recently, I wonder how they're coming along. That's Kirk Sorenson's company, the reason we all know about Thorium reactors. There are a handful of other companies on that path but I haven't heard of any ready to accept large orders. There are a few Uranium based MSRs ready for offshore deployment, forget the name of that company though.
And thorium has lower temperature. I hear that corrosion is a far bigger factor in Thorium reactors though?
Even if wind and solar truly have a similar death rate (which I doubt, nuclear deaths most likely aren't properly counted) a big difference is that nuclear reactors pose significant danger not only momentarily and not only to their close proximity, chernobyl for example spread radiator across most of europe (affecting many parts to this day) and made hundreds of kilometers around the reactor inhabitable for a long time and fukushima spread radiation across the ocean, with wind and solar that's simply not possible, no matter how bad the accident is. We also (as of now) were pretty lucky to never have a nuclear reactor be a military target in any recent war (which is another disadvantage) however given the current ukrainian war that could change pretty quickly. Another thing that's technically not true is nuclear being carbon free and environmental friendly ("green"), uranium is usually mined and concentrated/ enriched which comes with serious environmental destruction, carbon emissions and leave generations after us with an ever-increasing amount of toxic trash. Because of the comparatively short-lived nature of companies and the long lifetime of nuclear waste usually the states containing the waste ends up having to deal (and pay for) the waste, effectively privatizing profits and (long term) costs are nationalized thereby citizens end up paying multiple times (over generations).
I'm glad more and more countries slowly abandon fission reactors.
This ^
There have been ZERO deaths in America from commercial nuclear power plants
well molten salt reactors don't have that problem since they are liquid fueled at normal pressures so can't explode, if the fuel actually leaks it would just hit the floor and freeze, plus they are designed with drain tanks to quickly remove the fuel from the reactor if something does go wrong.
@@bencoad8492 yes I agree, they are (at least in theory) one of the safer reactors but that only reduces the chance of accidents, all other problems, like the risk in wars, all general problems regarding uranium/ waste and the extreme long term costs are remaining. We currently don't even know how to communicate the dangers of this waste for a civilization in 200000+ years, let alone build stuff that lasts that long... with that in mind I think the only reactors we should really think about are those using waste (without needing new uranium), to maybe gain some extra watt out of it and reduce it's long term damage.
@@Ahnii MSRs waste should only last about 300 years, much more manageable, can't really do much about weapon useage i guess its always going to be a risk.
Quite disappointed that after those 4 current tech LCOE examples, you don't give us the expected LCOE for the new SMRs as a comparison.
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for a new SMR is currently upwards of US$120 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for a typical market in Europe, the US or Japan[1]. However, according to GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), small modular nuclear reactors can be developed with an LCOE of about $60/MWh[2]. The largest component of the LCOE for nuclear power plants is the investment cost[3]. The PNNL report contains related questionnaires developed to estimate the LCOE for SMRs[4]. Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M, fuel costs, and financing costs[5]. In order for SMRs to be competitive with other flexible technologies, capex costs must fall 50% [1].
Citations:
[1] www.woodmac.com/press-releases/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-could-be-key-to-meeting-paris-agreement-targets/
[2] www.nucnet.org/news/smrs-can-be-developed-with-lcoe-at-key-level-of-about-usd60-mwh-says-geh-8-3-2022
[3] www.researchgate.net/figure/LCOE-for-SMRs-and-Some-Alternative-Sources-for-Different-Regions-at-5-Real-Discount_fig1_264149505
[4] www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/PNNL%20report_Techno-economic%20assessment%20for%20Gen%20III%2B%20SMR%20Deployments%20in%20the%20PNW_April%202021.pdf
[5] www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
This is a very well designed video! Thank you for taking a complex topic and doing the hard work of simplifying 👍🏼
If you go back and look at the original nuclear plants here in the US they were designed to reuse the waste by reforming the rods and reuse. We then got away from that. Regulations are the problem with energy production, like most things are. People talk about "green" energy (solar, wind) but they are not green at all when you look at the footprint of mining, production & recycling. Nuclear is the most clean. The price is high because of the fossil fuel industry along with the media portraying it as extremely dangerous. take a look at the US Navy's nuclear program. I got less radiation aboard a sub than I did walking out in the Sun. So looking at the price per unit over time, you will see Nuclear still being cheaper if the amount of regulatory folks get out of the way. It takes about a year for a Natural Gas plant to go up and they want to get it in before summer because they will be able to pay it off in that first year or so depending upon the market. I should be able to put up solar on my house but the power companies have a monopoly and influence with the legislation and the amount of hoops you have to jump through are crazy.
Well said. Note the US build a dozen nuclear plants in the late 1960s, approved by the then AEC. Those plants went up in 2-4 years, cost under $1000/KW, todays $. Oyster Creek. Nine Mile. That’s cheaper than todays gas plants. Those plants ran 50 years, some still running.
This really is a heart vs mind thing. if you've ever had to keep doors and windows closed because of a cloud, you get concerned when people wan to do it again. Obviously, the mind understands that relatively speaking, it's a great source of energy. The waste thing is a serious concern though. I hope they figure fusion out soon, and maybe in the mean time we can get by with wind a solar, allthough small plants do feel safer.
Here's the thing: wind and solar may look like a bridge-technology to fusion, but (not so sunny) Germany has been run on 52% renewables in 2023 so far. and solar and wind isn't that old of a technology. most of it was built quite recently. so we are getting there with huge strides. if we make it a wee bit easier to build renewables (i.e. not turning half an acre of wood into paper for permits etc) we'll (probably - just a feeling tbh) be done with renewables, before any new nuclear plant is done building.
unless they find a rare species of frogs. then it's all off. the frogs must not be disturbed in their little pond until it dries up because of global warming in 10 years, because we could not turn away from coal, because: FROGS EVERYWHERE! This is so strange. Cannot save the planet, because we need to save frogs. And yeah, what kind of people are we, if we just stomp on frogs! But honestly, we should be in "pants on fire" mode right now. The frogs can come back, once we put out the flames. At least, there will be something to come back to after that.
I am rambling. It is late here. Cheers from Germany and good night!
The solution to the nuclear waste problem is to build THORIUM Reactors. They can reburn the "waste" products from conventional nuclear reactors... extracting the other 97% of the power that is slated for underground storage bunkers.
@@ChrisBigBad Basically correct. Renewables are rolling out at something like fifty to 100 times the rate of new nuclear build. They attract private investment and ownership and in the US and other nations there are now renewable generators competing without subsidy. Even individuals can force the issue by buying their own, including some degree of storage - not cheap, to be sure, but some people put a premium on independence. Commercial operations manage with commercial finance and commercial insurance.
Given the pace of rollout and the large number of unused rooftops and alternative locations there is no reason we cannot have this rollout and still keep unique fauna and flora.
@@aaroncosier735 I agree. :)
Still expensive and slow... solar, wind, and just using less power to do more is where the big gains are to be found. Another reason for the nuclear tech we use is that enrichment = weapons grade nuclear material (which is actually the real goal) notice all nuclear energy nation's are also nuclear weapons nation's...
Fascinating, I always wond wondered if making smaller reactors would be better than making really big ones. Glad there is a company is actually doing it...
No it's not, but it could be a workaround to avoid the really scary initial investment.
The Soviets produced hundreds (potentially thousands) of Beta-M nuclear generators and scattered them all across the Soviet Union. These aren't new concepts. When the Soviet Union collapsed these generators were abandoned all over the former territories. They're still being discovered now. Many of them are severely damaged. People have died as a result of discovering them. There's no telling how many thousands of people in former Soviet states have become sick and died as a result of coming into contact with this pollution. None of this is monitored successfully by any international agency.
People really need to ask themselves if they want to do this again, only bigger.
@@CraftyF0X With the caveats of the costs down the road.
More wastes, harder to process (dispersion); will cost more to take care of... Who will pay for that? (and will it be done seriously at all?)
This seems more like an investor lure (lower initial investments because the end costs are not factored in)
Centralisation on a few big plants males both problems easier and cheaper to manage as well as being more efficient in fuel use.
@@etienne8110 You'd like to read my standalone comment under the video, it clearly says Im not at all convinced this is the best idea. Matter in fact I criticised this idea from many angle. If you can't find it or really curious I can repost it here.
I suppose failures could be less catastrophic in smaller plants. But statistically, one could assume more plants would tend towards more failures.
Only if all other variables stay the same. With SMRs, especially these designs, none of the other variables are the same thus statistics can not be used to predict or even indicate disaster rate or scale. Different design, smaller energy amounts, not vulnrable to natural disasters the same way the others were improved safety features and reduction or removal of human error.
For example, of the 3 disasters, Chernobles was a different design and primarily a weapons plant, NOT a power plant. It was primarily used to make weapons grade plutonium. so design COMBINED with human error (not exclusively because of human error) caused that disaster. Chernoble type disaster is impossible with SMRs.
Fukishima was also partly a design issue, combined with a twin natural disaster of Tsunami and earthquake. That is why other nuclear reactors have survived tsunamis and earthquakes. At fukishima the primary failure point was the failure of the emergency generators due to flooding. With SMRs emergency generators are not needed or used as the reactors stop automatically in the event of power failure. There cant be a meltdown state afaik.
Not familiar enough with 3 mile but it's worth mentioning the difference in scale/size of the reactors, as well as design, aka 50+ years of safety improvements between that reactor design and SMRs.
So statisitics can only be use din this case if the designs and other factors were the same or similar, and they are not.
So your base premise if faulty.
@@antoniestrydom6367it doesn't matter the design, Chernobyl wasn't a technical issue so much as human error. Someone decided the issue didn't need to be addressed because it's cheaper not to. Can you seriously say in a capitalist market that this will never cross some CEO's mind for the sake of their bottom line?
I have been thinking about this. Why do we have huge grids anyway? It seems to make more sense to assess the needs of small communities and then work out the infrastructure. It also keeps the bloody "ruling" classes hands off it to some degree.
12:00 You can't compare the costs of solar and wind without the costs for backup, storage, grid.
One thing you didn't mention are these LWR or Molten Salt reactors. That would effect the safety and simplicity of the reactors.
We have been waiting for those so many years….keep up the hope!
I would be very interested in @UndecidedMF to make a video about LWR or Molten Salt reactors. Here in Denmark we have at least two companies working on these, one of them being Copenhagen Atomics (I have a friend that works there).
I understand that the nuclear waste from those types of reactors also have half the radioactive half-life of a standard water-cooled reactor, as well. Seems like a better choice for mass production to me, but what do I know.
Matt gave the final price but did he ever mention the power figure or the LCOE for these SMRs? Had to laugh at the "lightning fast" 2 years construction timeline! I think "comparatively" might've helped in that sentence :)
I believe the exact adverb was "blindingly" but yes, I had a spit-take at this too.
Once again, great information. This goes along way to showing that the issue of carbon free energy is more of a shot gun rather than a single bullet solution. But, did I miss what the cost for the modular units was vs Solar, Wind and traditional Nukes? Thanks again, you information keeps me grounded about the future for my children.
My issue with Matt's video is that it assumes use of miniaturized versions of Gen II reactors. That is a mistake since they use the "old fashioned" fuel assembly model. MSR and LFTR Gen III/IV reactors are more flexible, safer, and can be refueled while operating. The SMRs of the type Matt was covering cannot.
@@TwoWolves refueled while operating is not necessarily a good idea with regard to proliferation. LFTR is just a specific kind of MSR. The Gen IV category is where the "safer" part seriously comes in as those reactors use physics alone to put a limit on the reaction and deal with decay heat, not active safety systems.
Other companies are also working on SMRs. A company called NuScale has even gotten through the regulatory process in the U.S. on one of their designs.
Problems of SMR is two thing: First is that SMR is too expensive for its power generation capacity (per kW or per kWh base). Yes, small SMR is cheaper to build but small in power generation capacity, too. So economy of scale is against SMR. Best SMR is about two times cost of conventional nuclear or any fossil-fuel power plant. Seconds is that it does not solve or reduce nuclear waste problem. Same amount of nuclear waste for same nuclear power generated. We need cheaper SMR with much less waste.
Running many facilities of same kind looks good on the first look, but gives us a huge cluster risk (like France showed, as they hat to shutdown many plants due to a problem which affected all of the same reactors).
Betting on many of a kind baseload power facilities being available at all times can get us in real trouble, like France showed last winter
It was better then Germany, who stopped nuclear and depended on Russian gas... 😳
France was exporting energy, while other countries were in crisis mode
@@growtocycle6992 France actually is in crisis mode, have a look at the european energy exchange charts.
Excellent video!
According to Google, there are 11 rbmk reactors still in service. They all began operating between 1979 and 1990. They have been operating safely over that time. Not bad for a poor design.
As to levelized cost, another term that is just now being discussed is capacity factor. I'm curious if capacity factor has been figured into the numbers you presented. If not, the adjusted numbers would be nuclear 167 per mw, wind approximately 152 per mw, and solar would range between 144 & 360 per mw. This does not factor in the US estimated 30% increase in transmission line miles needed if we were to transition to a wind/solar dominated grid.
I found this interesting. In order for a typical newly installed wind farm to equal the power generation of Last Energy's, smr occupying 1/2 an acre. That farm would need to cover 2 square miles.
Interesting but farming (of plants and animals) can still be done on wind farms if installed on land. The largest wind farms are offshore though and land area required is therefore zero.
yes, while LCOE is a convenient way to compare energy generation, its has its limitations. for starters it only take investment cost into consideration, not other things like land usage, pollution, or other social impacts in general. it also doesn't take into consideration things like distribution cost, and as you mentioned, storage costs.
@adon8672 all correct, but it does highlight the scale difference between the two. It's not a problem, perhaps in western Australia, the American West, or the Dogger banks. It probably will be in a densely populated country with little spare land. That's probably why England and Japan are taking a hard look at nuclear generation (Japan is all in). If the technology proves to be safe and reliable, New England in the US will likely also be interested. They do like their ocean views up there.
Besides, doesn't it make more sense to use a power dense, low footprint, very reliable energy source instead of installing 10 times (perhaps 40x) as many wind turbines that will also require a huge number of batteries, hundreds of extra transmission miles, and probably a fossil fuel peaker plant?
Good video, Matt. As per usual.
My first question was also as many others have posed, how does Last Energy compare in LCoE? Someone else below has asked about incorporating capacity variables into LCoE and some clarification on that would be quite interesting.
However, my biggest question is why on earth are we not recycling the waste (and when I say "We", I mean North America since you mention that Japan is already doing so) and is that something that is legislated against so Last Energy can't do it or is it just to cumbersome/expensive to make it viable? Seems to me that might make a pretty good video on it's own.
Thanks!
It is currently not legal to do so in the US, and has been the case since Carter. The concern is that when you reprocess, you separate the fuel into components, including Plutonium. Theoretically, someone could steal that plutonium and make a bomb. This isn't realistic, but is the basis for the legislation. We don't push it at this point as the once through fuel cycle is currently cheaper than we thing a closed cycle would be.
@@chriscragg Hey Chris, thanks very much for a speedy reply. Two thoughts:
1. Couldn't someone steal the waste and reprocess themselves, thereby gaining the uranium? Isn't that why it is stored very securely? (Rhetorical, yes) And therefore, couldn't we just protect the plutonium equally as diligently but without the 24 millennium timeframe over our heads? Or find a good use for plutonium in the next millennium?
2. This is the real answer, then, that it is not cost effective to recycle and reuse so why does Japan do it? They are opposed to strip mining uranium? They don't want to bury the waste in their own seismic backyard? Some other ethical reason?
Really interesting stuff.
THanks!
@@kentmcneill Theoretically, yes. But if they had technology to reprocess, they would have access to advanced technology and have to be very sophisticated. Also, the ability to steal a highly radioactive item and transport it in a shielded container is non-trivial. That isn't something you do in the middle of the night. The 24 millennium time frame is for the decay of the long lived fission products. Important to note that the long lived items are pretty low in radioactivity. The "hot" stuff decays pretty fast (which is why it is hot). Uranium itself is radioactive right out of the ground. Plutonium is more radioactive, and decays away. It is very fissile and stuff we really want to keep and use in reprocessed fuel (its the good stuff).
Japan and France do it, for various reasons. One, its just a good idea to reuse fuel than to have to store it. Two, it limits the amount of uranium you have to purchase. Countries that don't have uranium mines must import it. The US does have our own mines, though many have shuttered.
seems that the growth of costs for Nuclear went up between '09 to '21 because of Fukushima and it's issue.
if renewables are so cheap per MW then why is it when i choose the renewable instead of coal option on the power bill it costs more money. they are missing something in the calculation
The more of your videos on nuclear tech that I watch, the more time I spend digging into it myself. It's led me to realize just how many companies have their fingers in the nuclear energy pie. Like Westinghouse, who made the TV I watch most of your videos on, recently unveiled a new SMR design. They (Westinghouse) also developed some of the technologies used in 430 of the world's 440 nuclear reactors.
I'd love to see a video from you going over some of the less expected members of the nuclear family. Like Rolls-Royce and their SMR, or Westinghouse who is mostly known for making mid-quality televisions in the public eye.
Westinghouse is known for high voltage electrical componentry and inventing the modern pneumatic air brake system in the 19th century
One point that was overlooked was the amount spent on government regulations in the nuclear power industry. The regulations are supposed to make it safer but government regulations are not always the most efficient way to achieve this. I worked in a plant that was designed to be operated by 200 people. That was before Three Mile Island (TMI). After TMI that number increased closer to 1500. The personnel increase was to meet new regulations.
The reason the LCOE jumped during the study period was due to Fukushima. While Chernobyl had a completely different design than plants in the US, Fukushima was a similar design. The result was more regulation that had to be met by the plants resulting in the higher LCOE you mentioned. Also, the LCOE can be misleading due to the cost (time and money) imposed on nuclear by government regulations. Wind and Solar are both relatively new and have minimum regulations that could change. In addition, wind and solar can’t provide output 24x7 like nuclear.
SMR will have to resolve some of the issues of government regulation while maintaining a high level of safety to be successful. While it is helpful that they can be quickly built and deployed, it doesn’t help if it takes years of red tape to get a license to operate the reactor.
Thank you for highlighting this. Overregulation is the major reason why nuclear power is so expensive.
I don't think that was overlooked? It figured on the list of expenses - and they talked about it as well, how they intend to streamline the bureaucracy by shipping the exact same product every time.
@@RasmusSchultz It was overlooked in the sense that when comparing the LCOE of the different forms of generation it wasn't mentioned that nuclear is so much higher due to regulations. It was pointed out the LCOE went up during the study but it wasn't pointed out that was due to additional regulations added due to Fukushima. It makes sense that it should be easier to streamline the regulations by standardizing but in the current system that doesn't matter. It might allow some of the paperwork to be duplicated between sites but it doesn't change the years it takes to get the licensing. Or that the smallest change requires the same process and paperwork as the biggest change.
@@craigm7513 well, it sounds like their entire business plan hinges on the system and regulations adapting to this new business model? if regulators insist on meticulously reviewing the same plans over and over for every plant, it doesn't sound like they have a viable business plan at all. (which I have heard some people describe as the flaw in the idea of building small reactors to begin with. if the cost for reviews and permissions is going to be the same plant-for-plant, then obviously the only thing that makes sense would be to build as big as possible. small reactors would never become viable. I hope that's not the case. presumably so does anyone trying to make a business out of making small reactors.)
@@johnfisher3380
Said, "over-regulation is the reason why nuclear power is so expensive."
No. The new nuclear power plants have multi-billion dollar cost overruns and decade long construction delays. Plus nearly a billion to decommission and store the toxic waste onsite for millennia.
Utilities are not going to order any new nuclear power plants; they're far too expensive.
Matt, I really like your videos. They are interesting and lead to more questions. With regard to nuclear energy waste, what about vitrefication? Has that method gone passé? Also, what about the grid, itself? I understand that our aging grid is a big part of the reason more green energy hasn't been okayed to plug in. And what about microgrids? It seems microgrids could build resilience in the face of a changing climate. Thanks!
Vitrification is a common part of dry cask storage as I recall
While many solar and wind plants tend to need to be built away from existing grid infrastructure for weather reasons, it would be relatively easy to site new small nuclear at existing coal plant locations so that they can use the existing grid and water source for cooling. They even have rail lines ready to help with the construction.
yep building new big NPP is a risky business .. but shutting down perfectly fine NPPs which easily could run further 10-20 years is braindead (see germany)
I didn't see the LCOE for SMR Nuclear. Is it anticipated to be in line with wind and solar, or just cheaper than conventional nuclear?
A nuclear reactor is complex, but nuclears reactors are very well understood and even building the largest reactor is a project of relatively limited scale.
On the other hand, building a nationwide powergirid running on 100% renewables is a project of gargantuan proportions with many aspects that are not at all understood and many technical problems which have not yet been solved.
I would be interested in how they priced the cost of solar versus nuclear. To really compare the two you need to base the cost over a 24 hour period. For solar you need to triple the size of the installation and include the cost for battery storage to cover the 16 hours a day when the sun isn’t shining.
That’s what I was thinking as well
The grid costs double the electric production price. With on site production and battery you can save this significant part. It’s more save, because noch black out on big scale. Investment, running , service, depose of solar and wind disrupted already in certain country’s the nuclear. It’s not competitive any more at this time.
@@archivtv5460 Sorry but I am having understanding your point.
All nuclear waste ever created in the world can fit on a standard American football field.
I love the whole concepted idea of these nuclear plants but I do believe they are lacking a protection perimeter around it which I was thinking of massive concrete stones or huge rocks that can be delivered and placed around it on site; this will prevent future accidents like vehicles accidentally hitting them or bumping into them and rocks will permanently stop a vehicle at full speed... And since they do cost $123 million and 2 full years to construct, it would be better protected. FYI.
Can we get a comparison video of the risks and actual real harms of the toxic byproducts of different types of power? I don't really mean co2, though it could be mentioned but more things like coal ash, nuclear waste, end of life solar panels, whatever wastes cones from extracting and burning natural gas, etc. I'm assuming that the low carbon newer technologies generally win out, but I'd be interested to see an actual in depth comparison, especially on the coal and nuclear (one I know has created real issues and one really freaks people out). I think that comparison might also be a useful discussion when people bring up nuclear waste.
Literally everything Matt is talking about is undecided. This is Amazing. You are leaving this channel thinking about "what should we do and how to do it better?". Not a lazy content at all
Great video Matt. I’m still on the fence about micro-nukes. But with large scale, the costs of decommissioning are skyrocketing, and then there’s the cost of past and future disaster mitigation. The current Price tag for Fukushima stands at over $7 billion USD annually since 2013, with no end in sight; only a rough estimate of a 20 year horizon to wrap up the disaster. The victim compensation fund (not yet paid out) stands at over $84 billion USD. What does this do to the cost per kilowatt hour???
I am definitely in the "Just go Nuclear" camp. These small, modular systems appear to be a real, safe, doable solution.
I think we need to take away from the ending, and not just have one thing! Nuclear will be great addition, but we have so much wasted space we could put solar on, roofs, factories, car parks - and more! The fact that we blanket good agricultural fields with solar because its a "better yielding crop" is just stupid, but going only nuclear would be too - there are still problems, and it is still kind of expensive, solar and wind, and a few other renewables is certainly worth to have in the mix, or to be honest, the way I see it - Nuclear is worth to have in the mix too!
@@Krydolph Agree 100%. Side note, I just read that solar and wind are now generating more power in this country than coal. So, at least we are making some progress. I see nuclear, along with massive expansion of wind and solar, as a way eliminate fossil fuels altogether. Nuclear fusion will likely prove to be the best long-term solution, imo.
I think if they removed the word nuclear and substituted the phrase “feel good magical” reactor people would relax more.
SMR's generate more nuclear waste per kWh generated relative to large nuclear power stations because the SMR's have less neutron efficiency. Molten salt reactors using Thorium are very hazardous with gamma radiation emissions during operation.
I have a close family member who has worked for the Nuclear Power Industry. At the beginning I was quite afraid about nuclear. After being properly educated about the different types of radiation and effects on human DNA from experts in the field I am hoping some day to have a tiny nuclear device to power our homes on site.
I learned from a university educated Canadian, I believe his name was Crosby, working in Nuclear in France, carried waste products, pellets from the French nuclear industry in his pant pocket! He had a young family and lectured on how he travelled always with a Geiger counter to monitor the world around him. The French reactors left very little radiation in their wastes.
He also pointed out that the professions that are highest exposed to radiation were airline pilots!
Another lecture was given by a Professor at University of Western Ontario, he and his team studied the effects of radiation on humans all over the world! He said there are spas in Europe that expose humans on a regular basis to ten times the recommended amount of radiation. They did all the testing possible to conclude that these people did not have any DNA changes.
Fascinating studies and research. In the end it was discovered that we need a yearly dose or radiation like an CTScan or mammogram to protect or bodies from larger disasters like a vaccination.
The other issues with building of the $6 billion dollar power plants is the fear factor. It gets started and then someone gets scared and they have to do another study, then something else comes along to stop or slow the process.
The smaller reactors seems to be a great solution. Hopefully someday we will have it accessible for our home use.
The biggest fail in nuclear is that in the past 70 years they haven't built the waste solution, and this new system seems very practical, but it still does not address the waste issue. The problem with nuclear is that getting to the point of generating power has been so expensive that the people involved have forgone spending time and money on solving the waste issue. There just isn't any profit in nuclear waste. If there was, then the cost of nuclear energy would skyrocket.
Waste storage is a problem, but not the extent of a problem that it is believed to be. The actual amount of long-term radioactive waste is proportionately small, and can, for many, many decades be kept, safely, on site. Additionally, a large portion of the nuclear waste, spent fuel rods, can, and should be re-processed into additional fuel. This is done in other countries, but is prohibited in the United States because of weapons proliferation concerns. This regulation should be eliminated.
And the anti-nuclear Luddites will assure no solutions are found as who will waste their time and money researching a solution for something Marxist democrats have done their best to destroy.
The reprocessing techniques have existed since the 50's. Some countries do recycle the waste today, but it's just cheaper and less cumbersome to kick the can down the road and purchase new fuel. Keeping the waste in containers on site for years is not expensive at all, and new fuel is cheap compared to the energy it gives off. There is plenty of value in spent fuel, it's just cheaper to run open cycle for now
11:43 is the fact solar and wind are so heavily subsidized play a role in the cost benefit equation? If that subsidy is not included then that is a very deceptive stat they put out.
LCOE calculations take all costs into account. Subsidies are just a different source of money to pay the costs, so they do not alter the results.
SMRs are the future of energy, my mind as a nuclear-qualified sailor cannot be changed on this. I first heard about them a few years ago and it's just the perfect solution to Nuclear's historic issues. I'm all for it.
Thanks! Your content is great entertainment and more importantly, it gives us hope in our future.
Glad you’re enjoying it! And thanks for the support.
Far too expensive.
I’d have to say a big no to nuclear just due to the waste storage issue. That reusing of “spent” fuel, or recycling as it were, might be an idea but everything nuclear is still questionable and no one will want waste management facilities anywhere near people or nature.
If the money being spent on revising and perpetuating old, fuel inefficient and inherently more expensive nuclear power generation technologies were expended on refining Molten Salt Reactors MSR's would provide a safer, cleaner, substantially cheaper alternative to high pressure pellet fueled systems.
Seems to me that interests vested in pellet fueled reactor designs are doing their utmost to alter and sustain positive public perception for a technology that could and should be displaced by Molten Salt Reactor technologies.
As I understand it MSR's are capable of utilizing virtually all of their fuel as well as utilizing waste products from antiquated, pellet fueled technologies.
Given that advantages inherent to MSR's significantly outweigh outdated pellet fueled systems, it is astonishing that designs dependent on pelletized fuel continue to be extolled as though it enjoyed some measure of virtue which simply does not apply.
Here in the UK, the idea having more nuclear energy to the grid, is supported by large number of people. But having a nuclear reactor of any kind, nearby your home or city, would result in large scale objections, it's yes we want more nuclear energy, but build the reactors in someone else's backyard!