GE and BWXT would be the most direct. GE is impacted way more by non-nuke business ventures. BWXT is nuke specific, but actually a completely different company. They are, however, partnered in the BWRX-300. Both are on the NY stock exchange. Hitachi is on the Tokyo exchange - HTHIY - but they do far, far more than just nuke.
Great sales pitch but no one ever indicates the sale price of the electricity. My money says these people are banking on governments to buy into the claimed 'green' aspect of SMR's, with little or no financial benefit to the end users. Wind generated electricity in the UK means our utility bills are at a record high. Maybe SMR's will help ro save the planet but I strongly doubt that they will save money for the consumers...
They mean BWRs in general. 31, last I recall, are currently running in the US. That's why they say the fuel is ready to go - they're already using it. They just haven't built the small version yet. They have running ABWRs, they never built the ESBWR. The most currently BWR models in the US are the BWR-6, and there are 4. Most BWRs running today are BWR-4s.
This is not universally true. The nuclear industry and challenges in building traditional reactors are unique. Traditional reactors require significant footprints and have a higher risk class associated with its size. This means fewer suitable locations are available that meet the needs for the generation plant that will be politically acceptable. The time it takes to build the reactors due to the safety systems draws out the construction time significantly and as projects take more time they are more vulnerable to economic conditions are generally increases costs further. Due to the overall cost it also means large amounts of capital which also is hard to secure, especially politically. The large reactors also require more distribution infrastructure to get the power around. SMR’s are smaller and cheeper making it easier to find space and capital to deploy. Their projects are faster meaning they are less vulnerable to economic changes. They also enable the energy source to be deployed closer to where it will be used. They also work well with existing nuclear infrastructure since many models also reuse spent fuel from larger reactors. This lower size also helps in North America where many communities are sparse making large plants unrealistic. SMR’s make it possible to build a reactor and support smaller communities more economically. It can also allow the grid to become more resilient since there are more sources for power that are spread out.
@@jaysonkmendoza The VC Summer and Vogtle projects had no trouble finding land and the public and government was 100% behind the projects. Vogtle should have been canceled but the PUC gave them 100% support and the government backed low interest loans. You can reprocess spent fuel, extract Pu239 and make MOX fuel but the idea that SMR can reuse spent fuel is a misstatement.
@@jaysonkmendoza This is what a small local Idaho newspaper said 10 months ago about NuScale's SMR project. NuScale just last week finally canceled their SMR project even though they had NRC construction and operation approval, free government land on which to build, AND $2 billion in taxpayer welfare. They had everything you said and more and still failed. If you don't believe cost factors believe REALITY. In 2013, the Wall Street firm Lazard estimated that the cost of generating electricity at a new nuclear plant in the United States will be between $86 and $122 per megawatt-hour. Last November, Lazard estimated that the corresponding cost will be between $131 and $204 per megawatt-hour based upon the 4 recent new nuclear projects in the U.S. . During the same eight years, renewables have plummeted in cost, and the 2021 estimates of electricity from newly constructed utility-scale solar and wind plants range between $26 and $50 per megawatt-hour. Nuclear power is simply not economically competitive. SMRs will be even less competitive. Building and operating SMRs will cost more than large reactors for each unit (megawatt) of generation capacity. A reactor that generates five times as much power will not require five times as much concrete or five times as many workers. This makes electricity from small reactors more expensive; many of the original small reactors built in the United States were financially uncompetitive and shut down early. The estimated cost of constructing a plant with 600 megawatts of electricity from NuScale SMRs, arguably the design closest to deployment in the United States, was originally advertised as costing $1 billion but upon requesting actual bids from engineering firms, increased to $6.1 billion in 2020. Given inflation and other cost constraints that cost today can only be expected to be significantly higher. The cost was so high that ten members of Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems canceled their contracts. NuScale then changed its proposed plant configuration to 6 fewer reactors but increased each reactor output from 50 Mw to 77 Mw costing at total of $5.3 billion. The NRC just last week approved the construction of the 50 Mw design but now will have to start the review process all over given the switch to a 77 Mw design. For each kilowatt of electrical generation capacity, that estimate is around 80% more than the per-kilowatt cost of the Vogtle project in Georgia - before its cost exploded from $14 billion to over $30 billion. Based on the historical experience with nuclear reactor construction, SMRs are very likely to cost much more than initially expected. And they now have delayed the project start until 2025 in an attempt to find more backers. All this before the inevitable setbacks that will occur once construction starts.
the thing about the economies of SMALL scale is small can be prebuild and mass produced and just dropped in at current coal burning sites. large scale reactors are 5 to 10 years from the time you pull the trigger.
@@bobmutchseo There is a limit on what you can ship. A large scale 1 GW nuclear power plant takes up acres and every building and component has a purpose in producing power. So the smallest SMR ( 100 MW) could only be 1/10 that size. The idea that you can build an entire nuclear power plant in a size that can be shipped is ridiculous. Coal plants operate at much higher pressures and temperatures and all components are custom selected to be the most efficient. So you cannot simply replace a coal boiler with a reactor. NuScale's SMR was 100% NRC approved, had $2 billion of taxpayer money, and free government land on which to build and they just canceled that project due to ballooning costs. The build it in a factory concept was tried at VC Summer and Vogtle by building system modules in a factory and shipping to the site. It ended up being more costly than site building because the modules did not fit together and all had to be reworked on site. Also, every larger power plant project constructs an assembly building where large modules are built so they bring the factory to the build site. All these unicorn reactor startup companies claim savings and efficiencies that have never been proven. BTW, Vogtle that just started operating unit 3 and is still working on unit 4 is 16 years in the making and 130% over budget (currently $35 billion)
There are something like 31 BWRs in the US in current operation. Most of the dose in the steam is from N-16, which has a half life in seconds. Yes, some contamination, like Co-60 carries over, so unlike a PWR the turbine hall is a Radiologically Controlled Area (very annoying as an operator, having worked at both), but the design is very proven. Statistically, BWRs are safer. You only care about water in the reactor - you don't have to worry about water in steam generators.
It is, see my comment below. I've worked at nuke plants for 15 years. It isn't a concern. Most is N-16, with a half life in seconds. The turbine hall, feedwater, etc. are all in radiologically controlled areas, but it's not a problem, just makes them more annoying to operate and maintain. They're very proven. The most powerful reactor in the US is a BWR.
One of my BWR operators called PWRs "Pussy Water Reactors" because whenever we had operators come from the sister sites that were PWRs, they seemed afraid of going into RCAs. (They just didn't have the experience with going into rad areas and contaminated areas.)
This is a game changer.
The limitation will be their capacity to manufacture enough units to meet demand in a timely fashion.
Darlington Nuclear!
Great
What is the symbol to buy stock in GE Hitachi ?
GE and BWXT would be the most direct. GE is impacted way more by non-nuke business ventures. BWXT is nuke specific, but actually a completely different company. They are, however, partnered in the BWRX-300. Both are on the NY stock exchange.
Hitachi is on the Tokyo exchange - HTHIY - but they do far, far more than just nuke.
👍👍👍👍
Great sales pitch but no one ever indicates the sale price of the electricity. My money says these people are banking on governments to buy into the claimed 'green' aspect of SMR's, with little or no financial benefit to the end users. Wind generated electricity in the UK means our utility bills are at a record high. Maybe SMR's will help ro save the planet but I strongly doubt that they will save money for the consumers...
hahahahahahahahaha adjust your TINFOIL @grahambennett8151
65 already built!? Where...total BS
They mean BWRs in general. 31, last I recall, are currently running in the US. That's why they say the fuel is ready to go - they're already using it.
They just haven't built the small version yet. They have running ABWRs, they never built the ESBWR. The most currently BWR models in the US are the BWR-6, and there are 4. Most BWRs running today are BWR-4s.
65 GE Hitachi boiling water reactors.
They didn’t claim 65 BWRX-300s.
There is no such thing as economies of SMALL scale and no amount of smoke and mirrors will change that
This is not universally true. The nuclear industry and challenges in building traditional reactors are unique. Traditional reactors require significant footprints and have a higher risk class associated with its size. This means fewer suitable locations are available that meet the needs for the generation plant that will be politically acceptable. The time it takes to build the reactors due to the safety systems draws out the construction time significantly and as projects take more time they are more vulnerable to economic conditions are generally increases costs further. Due to the overall cost it also means large amounts of capital which also is hard to secure, especially politically. The large reactors also require more distribution infrastructure to get the power around.
SMR’s are smaller and cheeper making it easier to find space and capital to deploy. Their projects are faster meaning they are less vulnerable to economic changes. They also enable the energy source to be deployed closer to where it will be used. They also work well with existing nuclear infrastructure since many models also reuse spent fuel from larger reactors. This lower size also helps in North America where many communities are sparse making large plants unrealistic. SMR’s make it possible to build a reactor and support smaller communities more economically. It can also allow the grid to become more resilient since there are more sources for power that are spread out.
@@jaysonkmendoza The VC Summer and Vogtle projects had no trouble finding land and the public and government was 100% behind the projects. Vogtle should have been canceled but the PUC gave them 100% support and the government backed low interest loans.
You can reprocess spent fuel, extract Pu239 and make MOX fuel but the idea that SMR can reuse spent fuel is a misstatement.
@@jaysonkmendoza This is what a small local Idaho newspaper said 10 months ago about NuScale's SMR project. NuScale just last week finally canceled their SMR project even though they had NRC construction and operation approval, free government land on which to build, AND $2 billion in taxpayer welfare. They had everything you said and more and still failed. If you don't believe cost factors believe REALITY.
In 2013, the Wall Street firm Lazard estimated that the cost of generating electricity at a new nuclear plant in the United States will be between $86 and $122 per megawatt-hour. Last November, Lazard estimated that the corresponding cost will be between $131 and $204 per megawatt-hour based upon the 4 recent new nuclear projects in the U.S. . During the same eight years, renewables have plummeted in cost, and the 2021 estimates of electricity from newly constructed utility-scale solar and wind plants range between $26 and $50 per megawatt-hour. Nuclear power is simply not economically competitive.
SMRs will be even less competitive. Building and operating SMRs will cost more than large reactors for each unit (megawatt) of generation capacity. A reactor that generates five times as much power will not require five times as much concrete or five times as many workers. This makes electricity from small reactors more expensive; many of the original small reactors built in the United States were financially uncompetitive and shut down early.
The estimated cost of constructing a plant with 600 megawatts of electricity from NuScale SMRs, arguably the design closest to deployment in the United States, was originally advertised as costing $1 billion but upon requesting actual bids from engineering firms, increased to $6.1 billion in 2020. Given inflation and other cost constraints that cost today can only be expected to be significantly higher.
The cost was so high that ten members of Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems canceled their contracts. NuScale then changed its proposed plant configuration to 6 fewer reactors but increased each reactor output from 50 Mw to 77 Mw costing at total of $5.3 billion. The NRC just last week approved the construction of the 50 Mw design but now will have to start the review process all over given the switch to a 77 Mw design. For each kilowatt of electrical generation capacity, that estimate is around 80% more than the per-kilowatt cost of the Vogtle project in Georgia - before its cost exploded from $14 billion to over $30 billion. Based on the historical experience with nuclear reactor construction, SMRs are very likely to cost much more than initially expected. And they now have delayed the project start until 2025 in an attempt to find more backers. All this before the inevitable setbacks that will occur once construction starts.
the thing about the economies of SMALL scale is small can be prebuild and mass produced and just dropped in at current coal burning sites. large scale reactors are 5 to 10 years from the time you pull the trigger.
@@bobmutchseo There is a limit on what you can ship. A large scale 1 GW nuclear power plant takes up acres and every building and component has a purpose in producing power. So the smallest SMR ( 100 MW) could only be 1/10 that size. The idea that you can build an entire nuclear power plant in a size that can be shipped is ridiculous. Coal plants operate at much higher pressures and temperatures and all components are custom selected to be the most efficient. So you cannot simply replace a coal boiler with a reactor. NuScale's SMR was 100% NRC approved, had $2 billion of taxpayer money, and free government land on which to build and they just canceled that project due to ballooning costs.
The build it in a factory concept was tried at VC Summer and Vogtle by building system modules in a factory and shipping to the site. It ended up being more costly than site building because the modules did not fit together and all had to be reworked on site. Also, every larger power plant project constructs an assembly building where large modules are built so they bring the factory to the build site.
All these unicorn reactor startup companies claim savings and efficiencies that have never been proven.
BTW, Vogtle that just started operating unit 3 and is still working on unit 4 is 16 years in the making and 130% over budget (currently $35 billion)
Radioactive water onto the turbine? Bad idea.
what ? the steam ges through turbine is never radioactive?
The secondary loop steam which goes to the turbines is not radioactive.
tell me you don't know how a nuclear reactor works without telling me you don't know how a nuclear reactor works lmao
There are something like 31 BWRs in the US in current operation. Most of the dose in the steam is from N-16, which has a half life in seconds.
Yes, some contamination, like Co-60 carries over, so unlike a PWR the turbine hall is a Radiologically Controlled Area (very annoying as an operator, having worked at both), but the design is very proven.
Statistically, BWRs are safer. You only care about water in the reactor - you don't have to worry about water in steam generators.
It is, see my comment below. I've worked at nuke plants for 15 years.
It isn't a concern. Most is N-16, with a half life in seconds. The turbine hall, feedwater, etc. are all in radiologically controlled areas, but it's not a problem, just makes them more annoying to operate and maintain. They're very proven. The most powerful reactor in the US is a BWR.
Boiling water reactor? Sounds gross.
pee water reactor (pwr) :DDDDDD
One of my BWR operators called PWRs "Pussy Water Reactors" because whenever we had operators come from the sister sites that were PWRs, they seemed afraid of going into RCAs. (They just didn't have the experience with going into rad areas and contaminated areas.)
👍👍👍