The Big Problem with SMRs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- What if the logic at the core of the SMR paradigm is faulty?
One of the key promises of SMRs is to move a greater percentage of work from the unproductive construction site to a productive factory environment... but what if large modular reactors do a better job of that?
Module construction for the nuclear steam supply system and balance of plant containing key components, HVAC, electrical, plumbing etc... can be moved to the factory environment in small or large modular reactors like AP1000, ABWR or the most recent CANDUs.
Civil works and site preparation cannot.
The problem with grid scale SMRs like BWRX-300 & AP300 etc... is that the civil works and site preparation don't scale down proportionately with the decreased reactor output.
The nuclear steam supply system and turbine island is typically only 25% of the overnight construction cost of a nuclear plant. The civil works, site preparation, installation work dominate overnight cost.
Therefore with grid scale SMRs ~300MWe you actually end up with a greater proportion of work per MWe being on the unproductive construction site compared to a large modular reactor defeating the premise and promise of SMR productivity gains.
Support Decouple on Patreon: / decouple
Learn more about Decouple Media: www.decoupleme...
To me it always struck me that it's an incredible amount of work and expense to get the site approved for any reactor, so 10 sites for SMR or Micro is still a similar amount of work as 10 sites for LWRs completely independent of the component and assembly costs.
It could be worse with SMRs, since they could be installed near industrial zones.
Let me answer that question with one statement: There is no such thing as economies of SMALL scale in power generation
Nice!
Good evening there, I personally reside here in Richland, Washington State, just adjacent to the massive Hanford Nuclear Site situated nearby. My own Father, now retired, personally worked at former WPPSS both over at WNP Units 3 and 5, along with WNP-2 for approx. 24 year's time. I personally worked out at Hanford in Administrative Support, in indirect support of the ongoing Nuclear Environmental Cleanup efforts out here, from approx. 1994 to 2012.
We must not discourage new nuclear installations.
There are 2 overriding benefits of SMR. Firstly they are ideal replacement for on site upgrades to existing 300-400 mw coal plants. Secondly it is easier to fund a starter pack with SMR than a large nuclear power plant.
SMR are obviously not a replacement for large sites and should not be sold to the public as such.
Jeeze louise - percentages are used by liars and car salesmen - this needs to be reframed in cost in money and time for civil works across reactors, and so on, and cost per MWh amortized over the expected life of the reactor, not NOT the first MWh produced.
Multiple SMR plants mostly are not as consumptive of engineering as the big reactor. Construction off site creating Modules that are complete and need only to be assembled on site.
Site preparation and complexity of construction is far less with a multiple SMR site!
I am not debunking your THEORY about the cost but I believe you to be mistaken in many of the cost assumptions you are making!
"Construction off site creating modules that are complete and need only to be assembled on site."
LMRs (Large Modular Reactors) do that too.
Love this presentation that not only doesn't dumb down because only mental deficits want that, it focuses on the dominant delusions of the day, such as what relevance production line modularity has, (not much, unless it it's irrelevant politics), and the bespoke tactic of playing the politics of individualised Reactors for deliberately ignorant fools is wearing very thin.
The comparison to Airports has an element of the same practice.
When Railways.., underground and cross river tunnels are standardised Civil Public Works, the vast improvement of land values around is leap upon by the vested interests, so why aren't the vested interests who require stable Electrification twistng the Political world to use a bit of obvious common sense. (Yes we know, it's "competition" politics)
While the world sinks.
A short clip doesn't make any sense. This is actually a good channel. There is SMR:s designed to work for long time with not much of maintenance. The construction also make them theoretically fool proof. And waste is not that big deal. But you never convince Deniers, no matter what. The first units produced will cost more -yes. But mass production will then do its thing. If you are serious about replace fossils we are talking about 80 -90 % of Worlds energy prod. The need is unbelievable, then will the big polluters (you know the countries) jump on the train?
Where does this savings from mass production of SMRs come from? Every nuclear power plant uses mass production of valves, pumps, fans, turbine, generator, piping, etc... Do you really envision one SMR factory that includes a steel mill, casting plant, motor manufacturing, pump manufacturing, piping manufacturing, etc..
Manufacturing is specialized in specific plants. Even auto manufacturing assemblies vehicle with the majority of the parts coming from other factories. But unlike vehicles, you can not ship a SMR. Look at the massive size and needed acres for a 1,000 Mw standard plant and a 300 Mw SMR would be at least 1/3 of that.
...me thinks SMR's are a better target to attack...smaller so less explosives needed.... Whatcha think fellers?
Every uranium-fired power plant is required to conform to the same defense requirements. That is part of what makes SMRs so ludicrously expensive, on a per-watt basis. It would be no easier to successfully attack an SMR than an LMR.
@@aliendroneservices6621 So you would rather defend, say three less-well defended reactors than just one that is well defended? You're in the wrong job. You need to get down the military, mate. They've clearly been doing this wrong for centuries. They're always looking for clever guys like you. LOL
@@grahambennett8151You didn't actually read what he said, did you?
Source:
ruclips.net/video/MRQiEpHjUM8/видео.html
I agree with the word salad issue of this interview. I believe the plants should be built by Provincial Governments, then handed over to private, as years go on. This would ensure quality control and maintenance. Sorry to point out Boeing, we don’t think we want a bunch of 737’s in our back yard, when we could have much better, near perfect units, built by quality Canadian, with experience. No deverstiyhires please.
It is the public that will need the inexpensive energy. Corporations can afford to pay for their power consumption.
I would like to see a chart (that I could believe) showing the construction costs to build a 300MW Nuclear/Wind/Solar/Gas plant. I know it depends on local legislative requirements etc, but just to have a physical works cost. or even say Plant/Hardware, Labour what ever. Surely its this kind of info thats needed to inform policy. Cheers
I can save you some time on part of that:
Wind and solar are infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis. There is zero point in building out *_any_* wind-and-solar, unless your goal is permanent-blackout.
@@aliendroneservices6621 I know that but I am looking for hard data, unless you have that you are just another shill fighting your corner.
I am in NZ, theres no subsidies here, yet wind and solar farms are going up everywhere. So I do believe that they must be cheaper per KWH in the short to medium term. I want to know how much the small reactors in Canada are costing, and how much of that was useless red tape, and what does it cost to re-fuel them after x years, running costs, that sort of stuff.
Currently a combined cycle natural gas plant is one sixth (1/6) the capital costs of an equivalent small or large nuclear plant. There's plenty of gas - - we're good for hundreds of years. And they now mix in 'renewable' biogas and, increasingly, hydrogen gas to the fuel to make it a much cleaner burn.....in fact, emissions are now well within so-called "net zero" recommendations.
@@davidgeary490
Thanks,
That's the sort of information I am after, but I really need the source, so that I'm not just passing on 2nd hand info, that probably passed through the hands of various zealots pushing their own particular barrow.
@@mikecoote9546 There are several sources (I'm using for an article). Eg. - Look up 'Cost of Electricity by Source' at Wikipedia for capital cost comparisons. Look up IEA - International Energy Agency (IEA) then explore that site to find reduction of emissions of gas compared to coal. Explore the site 'Voice for Energy', Canada, to find info on new natural gas technology breakthroughs. Look up 'NET Power', Texas, for info on a zero emission nat. gas plant prototype (BTW they are building one in Alberta). Basically, ask the pertinent questions at Google and, by sometimes circuitous pathways, you'll find answers. Might take some digging, but it's fun research. I like to frame the SMR promotion/hype as a slick glossy marketing brochure approach - compared to my 'Consumer Reports magazine' - type of objective comparative approach to the technology. These two guys on Decouple might just agree with that approach.
EVs big battery utility factor, when parked 23hrs daily, is very low.
Selfplug-in V2G EVs, driven 1 hr and plugged in 23hrs and trading electricity with the grid is MAXIMUM UTILITY FACTOR.
EVs battery liquid temperature management is extending battery life cycles by decades and the battery is free with the vehicle. 😊😊😊😊😊
The utility factor for nuclear grid electricity will be the big problem.
Grid capacity expansion costs are a huge cost like the plant costs. The both limit nuclear grid electricity.
The grid construction costs also limit distant renewables in the same way.
Offgrid capacity with big EV batteries means financial survival of these big grid solutions will need the customers to be locked into grid supply by law. It will be illegal to abandon the national grid.
For the upteenth time Stephen, all serious high wind+solar scenarios show a massive EXPANSION of the grid, not a contraction. Nuclear is what allows for a leaner grid. I implore you to stop repeating this brainrot that no one outside Australia takes seriously.
And such use also puts a lot of cycling wear on the battery which reduces its service life. There is no free lunch.
@@randacnam7321 Did I say EVs battery liquid temperature management is extending battery life cycles by decades and the battery is free with the vehicle. 😊😊😊😊😊 ?
This is great new discovery of todays battery technologies.
The Nissan leaf battery was bad in this regard.
Cheaper battery technology is evolving as well.
Trading battery service to the grid is a profitable business in parts of Australia as it helps grid stability.
The big $100million battery in SA paid for itself every year since it was built.
The first big battery in the world.
Hornsdale BIG BATTERY South Australia.
The early adopters will get the best returns until everyone gets their EVs.
@@randacnam7321 EVs battery liquid temperature management is extending battery life cycles by decades and the battery is free with the vehicle. 😊😊😊😊
@@stephenbrickwood1602 Still not a good idea. Stationary applications are better served by batteries optimized for calendar life and cycle life as they don't need to move.