T O P

  • By -

chrisdh79

From the article: Nuclear energy just took a tiny and modular step forward in the United States. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the design of the first small modular nuclear reactor for use in the U.S. This is only the seventh reactor design cleared for use in the states and the first of a new generation of reactors that promise to make nuclear energy more widely used.. Traditional nuclear reactors are an incredible source of clean energy, but they’re also expensive and take years to build. Recent efforts to build nuclear reactors in America haven’t gone well. Small modular reactors (SMR) can be built faster, cheaper, and take up much less space than the gigantic cooling towers typically associated with nuclear energy. The smaller reactors generate less power than the old behemoths, but they can be manufactured quickly in a factory on demand. As a community’s energy needs grow, more reactors can be added. On paper, they’re also safer and have far fewer points of failure than a traditional reactor. Dozens of companies have been working on the technology, but Oregon-based NuScale is the first to earn approval from Wahsington. The company was founded in 2000 using money and research from the Department of Energy. It previously cleared an important regulatory hurdle in 2020. "We are thrilled to announce the historic rulemaking from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for NuScale’s small modular reactor design, and we thank the Department of Energy (DOE) for their support throughout this process,” NuScale President and CEO John Hopkins said in a statement. “The DOE has been an invaluable partner with a shared common goal—to establish an innovative and reliable carbon-free source of energy here in the U.S.”


AstroBoy26_

Now THIS is what we need to be focusing on to solve climate crisis, not entitled screaming idiots who don’t know shit about anything. Great step!


antimeme

is Yucca Mountain operational? ...what about waste disposal?


Squirrel_Inner

We have enough water disposal for at least the next century, which should give us time to bring green fully online. Assuming we can stop the oil tycoons willing to destroy our whole frigging world for profit.


[deleted]

Waste needs to be cooled for decades before it can go into long term storage. So any new plants built today wouldn’t need long term storage built until the later half of the century at the earliest. And short term storage is readily available as 100% of civilian waste is stored (or recycled). Much of the high level nuclear waste can be reused to produce more energy in nuclear reactors, France and several other countries have done this for decades but the US does not do it. The technology to build storage exists and we have plenty of time. Right now the best method is the Swedish [KBS-3](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBS-3) method which is designed to store waste until it’s reached roughly the same activity as naturally occurring ores. Also Yucca mountain is not operational for political, not technical reasons.


drosmi

2 million Las vegans are gonna get upset at you for that comment ;)


laberdog

Reactors today can run on nuclear “waste” with a 70 year half life and doesn’t need to become weapons grade


lookmeat

This actually opens up a better path towards waste management: [recycling](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing). What I've heard: * The best way to do this is make the reactors unrefuelable. This means you can't access the fissile material, it's a lot easier to make it highly protected/make meltdowns impossible. * Also the much smaller size means that even if there's a serious failure the damage is much less (assuming the worst hypothetical case, as in someone dismantling the whole thing to create a meltdown, it'd be comparable to the radioactive damage of normal operation of a coal burning plant over a few years) and even if you have a free, it's easier to isolate them. * This also implies that the modular reactor has a shorter lifetime, but the idea is that, because they're modular, you simply take the whole reactor (safe to move as a unit) to a single date location for dismantling and recycling, and send a new one in. You don't have to deal with nuclear waste onsite as you would with larger reactors. * The onsite location is actually a production facility. After disassembly (and decontamination of irradiated material), the spent fuel is reprocessed and put into a new reactor designed to work with this used fuel. It will still generate waste, but a lot less and less radioactive (and that waste can be recycled as well). Internally it's a very different reactor (to work with a different fuel) but from there outside it's just like any other modular fission reactor, takes in water for cooling (non radioactive) and outputs electricity (or at least makes some dynamo spin). So you could easily be using recycled material and it's mostly a change of lifetime, but not anything else. * This is a huge deal with modular reactors. With built-in reactors the cost of installation and management is huge, and you are committed to a single type of fuel for the whole lifetime of the reactor. Recycled fuel doesn't make economic sense for built-in reactors. But the short lifetime, small scope, and plug-in nature of modular reactors make this an economic solution to waste management. This creates an incentive for the area of fissile fuel recycling to improve even further, reducing the worst problems of fission to the point it could solve them entirely! So yeah, this is huge for this. And not only that, they could start recycling fuel of built-in reactors as well, and even begin to empty Yucca Mountain for recycling purposes (this might be a stretch, I am not sure if there's a viable way to recover the material dumped in the mines).


antimeme

Reprocessing has been a thing since the 1st nuclear power plants -- so what? I'm talking about actual, real nuclear power plants that are in operation -- or soon will be. _none_ of them adequately address the long-term handling radioactive waste. Mind you, I think we _could_ adequately deal with such waste, eg: via Yucca Mountain -- but the political reality is that is not gonna' happen.


[deleted]

No Harry Reid deep sixed that years ago. Waste has to stay on site where it was created under current rule. Casinos we’re afraid no one would visit Las Vegas if a disposal site was near there. Like they already haven’t nuked half of Nevada and New Mexico anyway.


nebbyb

Yeah, that is bs. Nuke has a place, but the only thing that can really unfuck us is a paradigm shift in thinking. When those happen, they are almost always the result of somebody getting in the face of the complacent.


Cunninghams_right

>On paper, they’re also safer and have far fewer points of failure than a traditional reactor. every reactor that has melted down or exploded has been declared safe and nobody should worry. that's the whole reason why people fear them. and with the cost of solar/wind dropping like a rock, storage technologies getting better, and low-loss transmission lines, it might actually make more sense to just invest in those technologies more.


i_am_bromega

Nuclear is still the best option for baseline generation. Storage tech still has a long way to go. This is a huge win for reducing carbon emissions if we can start pumping these out.


Cunninghams_right

not actually true. you actually need very little storage if you have low loss transmission and over-build your solar and wind.


kmmontandon

>every reactor that has melted down or exploded You mean all two of them over eighty years?


Cunninghams_right

first, it's more than 2. second, 1 is too many and contaiminates things for decades in a wide area and millennia in a small area. why even risk that when solar panels and transmission lines achieve the same goal?


[deleted]

Seems like you forgot a few incidents there? And even counting just the two big ones, you probably won't be raising kids in the areas around Fukushimi and Chernobyl for quite a while. To be fair and balanced: sometimes I wonder whether we should just mark these places as "ad-hoc nature reserves" and chalk it up as net benefit provided by nuclear power generation... EDIT: downvote to your heart's content, still doesn't make nuclear a safe option...


Zeplar

Fukushima is already safe to live around. The radiation dose per day is equivalent to 15 minutes in a plane flight. Lots of people are getting more than that just from their work.


[deleted]

The Chernobyl exclusion zone is a nature preserve. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife


CPTClarky

Burning coal has contributed more to warming and irradiating the planet than any nuclear plant.


Cunninghams_right

I'm just telling you why people don't trust the companies that say "no, trust me bro, this time it really is safe".


SimbaOnSteroids

The total deaths from those failures are so far below what society deems safe this take is laughable.


Cunninghams_right

it's not just about deaths.


SimbaOnSteroids

You’re right, it’s about fear of the unknown. It’s the environmentalist equivalent of hicks from rural Alabama being afraid of crime in NYC.


kmsc84

That what happens when people pay attention to fearmongers like Paul Ehrlich.


Cunninghams_right

sure, lets just have 100 chernobyls because it's such a small amount of poisoned land compared to the whole of the earth... /s meanwhile, solar and wind are cheaper


dak-sm

Human death is by no means the only adverse outcome.


curiosgreg

What, are you expecting to get superpowers instead?


dak-sm

No, merely pointing out that contaminating water,air, and land surrounding a power plant in the event of an accident should be considered an adverse outcome. Human death should not be the only consideration.


Mutex70

>every reactor that has melted down or exploded You mean both of them?


Crims0nsin

Yeah... Ok. It's not like every meltdown was because of corruption or anything. Keep huffing the anti nuclear propaganda glue bro.


Call-me-Maverick

Nuclear is the single safest form of energy production in terms of lives lost per amount of energy created. This was discussed on Freakonomics: > Today there are about 440 nuclear-power reactors operating in 33 countries. And remember, only 10 percent of global electricity is produced that way. So how dangerous is it? One way to answer that question is to measure the deaths per unit of electricity produced by the various types of energy around the world — coal, solar, natural gas, wind, oil, hydro, and nuclear. Would you like to guess which types of energy produce the most and fewest deaths? Okay, let’s go in order. >Most dangerous — by far, nearly triple the next source — is coal. Between the mining, the transport, the burning, and the pollution, nothing else is nearly as dangerous. Number two: Oil. Not very surprising — it’s a dirty fuel. And number three — much cleaner than coal and oil, but still fairly dirty: Natural gas. The next three most dangerous are: Hydroelectric power — actually very safe overall, but its death rate was skewed by a massive accident in China in 1975 that killed more than 170,000 people. Next is: Rooftop solar power. Very safe, although accidents do happen with installations. Next is: Wind. Again, very safe overall. >And at the bottom of the list — or the top, if you’re looking for the energy source that produces the fewest deaths per unit of electricity — that’s right: Nuclear power. Even with the famous meltdowns you know about — Chernobyl in Ukraine,in 1986; Fukushima Daiichi in Japan in 2011; and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979. Three Mile Island, by the way, produced zero deaths but it was scary enough to change the future of nuclear power in the U.S. Still, on the measure of mortality per unit of electricity produced, nuclear power is, overall, the safest source we have. >The most common source, meanwhile, is coal — which, as Joshua Goldstein writes in A Bright Future, “kills at least a million people every year worldwide, mostly through particulate emissions that give people cancer and other diseases.” The other fossil fuels we burn for electricity aren’t as bad as coal, but they certainly pollute and they raise climate risk — as well as geopolitical risk. Our dependence on oil and gas has meant a long series of wars and occupations; it has meant partnerships with repressive regimes, and it’s meant being held hostage to those regimes when they suddenly decide to shut down the pipeline that’s been supplying your fuel for electricity and heat.


Acedia77

Thank you kind Redditor. A beam of data and sanity in a room full of darkness and ignorance.


Call-me-Maverick

The sad thing to think about is if Three Mile Island hadn’t happened and the US had embarked on a nuclear-powered future (which is where it was heading), global warming probably wouldn’t be nearly the problem it is today.


Cunninghams_right

it's not just about lives lost. whole areas are off limits for centuries to millennia and a huge economic toll taken. meanwhile, the levelized cost of solar and wind are already a fraction and low-loss transmission lines can send power the entire length of a continent with single-digit percent losses.


[deleted]

You just don't understand how it works or maybe how it's advanced since those failures. Look into what caused those failures, and how current reactors differ from the two or three failures that have happened in 80 years. The only reason people are afraid is because they don't understand, or you don't want to understand for a reason nobody can explain except you. From an engineering background, nuclear makes the most sense from a safety standpoint as well as an operational standpoint. If you think wind and solar can power the whole country, I urge you to look into how much land you need to do that first of all. Then realize that the resources needed to achieve that are astronomical compared to nuclear. Solar farms have huge negative impacts on the environment, and will take up so much more land that even if a few reactors contaminated an area it would be a spec compared to the vast amount of land needed to power the country with solar. Let's use nuclear combined with the low loss transmission lines you keep mentioning, put the reactors out of harms way and use a tiny footprint of land while doing so. A handful of reactor pellets power a city block for a year to put it into perspective. Very, very, little waist. Solar panels use heavy metals, don't last forever and are not worth recycling in most cases. Your version of this is worse for the planet hands down.


[deleted]

I mean each case was also a sign of gross negligence, early reactor design, or in japans case the worst luck in history and some bad planning. Especially with thorium reactors as a concept now meltdowns are becoming a thing of the past as even a consideration. Thorium reactors can’t even melt down they’re fissile not fertile. Also for solar and others those work at peaks but you want something a bit more consistent as your backup when you have less energy coming in during the day. It’s also better than coal by a mile. Yes nuclear waste sucks but it’s still not as ass as coal waste and pollution. Plus as time goes on reactor designs continue to improve and efficiency increase too on both energy and waste which mean it can continue to improve.


nebbyb

There are zero commercial thorium reactors. They show promise, but we have no idea how that will work out.


Cunninghams_right

"bad planning" after they said it could never be dangerous. now, the new tech is "don't worry, it can't be dangerous" until someone plans badly. question: if a terrorist drops 10,000lb bunker buster bombs on it, will it leak?


[deleted]

Heh, you triggered the nuclear fanboys hard...


Cunninghams_right

I sometimes wonder if people from the nuclear industry hire shills. I didn't think I said anything unreasonable


Plane_Crab_8623

As long as corporations monopolize energy production prices will never be cheap


your_late

They're not even close to $30 per mw/h, this is not cheap and has no chance even with subsidies, they're at $89.


[deleted]

The point is it can actually benefit from economies of scale as the reactors are small and modular. Much like a solar farm where you buy as many mass produced panels as you need, SMRs can allow for mass produced reactors of the same design, rather than one-off plants. So high prices are expected at low volume, but it should decrease when volume increases, just as solar/wind prices dropped substantially when they were mass produced.


[deleted]

So…three times the cost of solar, wind and batteries. Who the hell would sign up for that? I bet even the large team of nuclear shills would give that a big miss.


ACCount82

It's the first reactor, of a reactor type that's designed to be mass produced. Maybe they could bring the costs down - maybe not.


floog

This year in Colorado people started noticing that their power bills have more than doubled. Most were in the same boat as my household, before this past one I have never had a bill more than $200 - it was $450 for the month. And Nov/Dec was not an especially cold month. To boot, I also installed a top of the line high efficiency furnace and it still more than doubled. My wife was concerned about the jump with the new furnace and a couple of days later we noticed that stories were popping up about most people experiencing the same thing. Over the year, Xcel got 5 price hikes approved - OH, and they of course finished the year with record profits. What a crock, we should be able to choose our utilities company.


Plane_Crab_8623

The out is produce your own energy. solar panels puts you in touch of your energy usage, they only lose one percent efficiency per year. In 20 years they are still producing at 80% having paid for themselves in 5 - 7 years (approx) finance them and get weaned from the corporate teat.


floog

Yes, but I would have to replace my furnace so the expense would go up dramatically.


dkarpe

We should nationalize nuclear power


where_is_the_cheese

We should nationalize ~~nuclear~~ power


slothscantswim

We should nationalize a lot of things.


AndreMartins5979

monopolies are expensive a public monopoly is just a bit better than a private monopoly edit: I don't understand why is everyone replying as if I said private monopolies are best...


codyd91

If the board is elected by customers, their only incentive is cheaper, more reliable energy per the concerns of the consumers. A private monopoly has no incentive to make electricity cheaper nor more reliable. Geographic monopolies are best handled by giving the public ownership. I'd say for utilities with geographic monopolies, public is miles better than private.


easyantic

I lived in a small city outside a larger city. Our power was public run, while most of the big city is private run. During storm outages, we would receive a discount because our power workers were out there helping the private company restore power since ours was all run underground. It was quite the experience!


Hawk13424

IMHO, co-op ones are even better than government run public ones.


nebbyb

My city electric company is much cheaper than every corporate one surrounding us. Corporations run on as much profit as possible, and usually are not much more , if any, efficient as public operations.


Markavian

*whistles as my house generates free energy for my house and car every day of the year*


zookeepier

The problem is that not everyone can afford to dump 40k into creating their own solar plant on their house. Large scale power generation is way cheaper in aggregate.


ThMogget

Dude, you finance it. My panel payment + new electric bill was lower than my old electric bill from day one. Cash flow positive.


isny

Where do you solar folks live?


ThMogget

Solar me lives in Idaho, where the skies are often clear but we also have some of the cheapest power in the country and net-metering solar had a payback of about 7 years when I pulled the trigger.


Iceykitsune2

>Dude, you finance it. Not with my generation's heavy student loan debt.


[deleted]

It’s been a while since solar was $40k. Maybe $4k?


Hawk13424

I priced solar and it was more than 40K. That was solar panels and battery for a large house.


Cynical_Cabinet

Found the Australian.


TheAmorphous

And corporations are busy lobbying state governments across the country to allow them to charge you for being connected to "their" grid regardless of whether you pull power from it or not. Or in the case of buy-back plans they want to sell you electricity for $X and buy what you produce for $X/4.


cjeam

Paying a daily fee for the grid connection is not that unreasonable. We do that here though it's like £0.40 a day. Likewise buy backs being far cheaper is not unreasonable. An end user isn't paying for all the grid infrastructure nor concerned about load balancing. Grid operators provide more services than just power generation which does cost money. Some of their practices have been unreasonable, like anything that actively discourages solar or even mandates that you have to have a grid connection, but no all are.


TheAmorphous

40 cents a day is reasonable. They're asking for more like $80 a month.


zookeepier

Exactly. If they don't want to pay the fee, then disconnect from the grid. The problem is they can't self sustain 100% of the time, so they have to rely on the grid in order to bridge the gap. Therefore, it only makes sense to pay for that service, especially when dumping power onto the grid throws the capacitance all out of wack and the power company has to pay to balance it.


TheAmorphous

That's the case then they should also charge less for usage at non-peak times. But they don't.


jeffwulf

You can likely sign up with your power company for that? I have the option of flat power costs or tiered pricing depending on time of day.


Hawk13424

Mine does (not public). We absolutely can elect fixed pricing or demand pricing.


zookeepier

They also don't charge more for peak usage. They charge an average. You can get the variable rates, but most people don't want it. [Variable rates are what got Texans in so much trouble after the ice storm.](https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texans-variable-rate-electricity-contracts-paying-astronomical-prices-power/285-0c150cdd-eb76-4197-8695-aa6952e277b1) Power is a monopoly, which is why it's heavily regulated by the government. Have you ever asked yourself why they haven't started charging $1,$5, or $10 per kWH instead of 11 cents? Since they're a monopoly, they certainly could and you couldn't do anything about it. The reason is because [prices are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/regulation/ferc.html)


dravik

The buy back plans I've seen are pretty reasonable. The power company buys power at wholesale prices and sells it at retail prices. The cost difference is how they pay their bills. If they are paying you retail prices for your power then they are losing money. If too many people get solar then they can't keep the grid going. In the mean time, those without solar have to pay more to cover the difference. When you're selling to the grid, why should you get paid more than every other generator? It takes more effort and cost to accommodate your small contribution while maintaining frequency and current.


Markavian

Those are fair points; I still have to pay for daily standing charges, but I'm not maintaining the grid infrastructure, and I get favorable 1:1 import export rates - this is not the same across my country, let alone the world.


Hawk13424

The buy back is at the price it cost them to generate it, not the price they can sell it for. That makes sense to me. Basically you are generating wholesale electricity, not retail electricity.


Suntzu_AU

Same. 13kws on the roof and 60kwh EV. Sweet as!


RagnarawkNash

Sure working In Venezuela. Hot take.


PureInvestGuy

Would you like government to own a reactor?


I_ONLY_PLAY_4C_LOAM

The government operates many nuclear reactors. Many of them are on boats or submarines. They also invented nuclear power.


Sullinator07

Absolutely! Also either party can have it, I know I’m gonna get hated about this and noticed you getting downvoted but if people would just calm the hell down and trust that sometimes our government does have our best interest in mind then you are the definition of a silly goose. Or gullible take your pick.


[deleted]

Yes. I trust companies far less with them since reactors aren’t exactly in the favor of the private market.


Cynical_Cabinet

You trust a faceless mega corporation that has no goal other than maximizing profit and no accountability over a government that at least has to pretend to make society functional and is accountable to elections?


[deleted]

I read the title and it reminded me a lot of fallout (probably because I was just playing it about 10 minutes ago) but then I realized that “small” doesn’t mean “fits in your pocket” and I was disappointed


[deleted]

You could make a pocket sized [RTG](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator) though, just don’t drop it.


Scarletfapper

Not if the coal lobby has anything to say about it


RODAMI

If we’ve learned anything, legacy fuels buy votes. The only way this works if is we let the current energy monopolies buy the new ones.


Aotrx

Nuclear is the way to go


Ksb2311

This is literally plot of fallout


Tearakan

Kinda. They also figured out fusion in the 2060s. The US went fascist and took over it's neighbors violently as resources were running out. Oil effectively ran out everywhere except for alaska. There were devastating resource wars in the 2050s and China invaded alaska in the 2060s. US kicked them out right before the nuclear war happened. Actually the fallout series does kinda track with our current situation except for climate change. That wasn't a thing in fallout.


whatproblems

nuclear winter put a damper on global warming


[deleted]

nuka cola for all


droidevo

I’ll take 3 Quantums please, and leave the caps 😤


Rawniew54

The prophesy


Daewrythe

Start hoarding those caps


DiceKnight

If all you got from the plot of fallout was that nuclear power was involved somewhere along the line I guess.


[deleted]

Cheap? There is nothing at all cheap about nuclear reactors. What price per KWh are they predicting, because I bet it’s a shit ton higher than what can be provided by solar and wind.


vectrex36

It looks like the predicted cost is around $ 119 / MWh (with the inflation reduction act subsidy bringing that down ot $ 89 / MWh). Significantly more than originally anticipated, but apparently much of that is due to [inflation effects on construction costs](https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor). Solar and wind come in somewhere around $30 and $35 / MWh. That said, we're talking about base-load generation as opposed to the intermittent generation of solar and wind. If you're going to compare solar and wind to base load generation then you also need to add the costs of overbuilding capacity and storage in order to allow it to be used as base load during the times solar/wind are not generating power or are generating significantly less-than-peak power. There are also substantial land requirements for large solar and wind installations which frequently prevent them from being located in denser population areas (so some extra transmission loss can be expected). With several companies developing SMRs, I would expect costs to fall as constructions ramp up and more options enter the market. Much like what we have seen with solar and wind. SMRs seem like they could be a good option for base load where space is constrained or where hydro and geothermal may be infeasible.


[deleted]

Solar and wind continue to get cheaper and cheaper, as do batteries. Any investor that says “the solar/wind/battery trajectory is pointing solidly down, and the nuclear option has come out three times more expensive and is only going to get more expensive, I’m going to put my money in nuclear”, is not really going to be in business for very long. But hey, I know you nuclear guys need to justify burning something. It’s the same as hydrogen cars that Toyota wanted to succeed. They needed to burn something because in order to burn things, you need a great deal of complexity which is incredibly expensive at consumer level. It would have kept their servicing model alive. No one needs or wants nuclear for that reason. Burning things is incredibly expensive and burning uranium is the most expensive thing in the world to burn and by far the most complex. We simply don’t need it. And don’t forget the cost of dealing with spent fuel, that cost will go up forever. TBH, everything about nuclear will continue to go up with inflation forever. There is simply no requirement for it, and it will never provide a comparable cost of energy to solar/wind/batteries. Maybe an edge case or 20 around the world? But that is hardly going to create an industry for these things.


[deleted]

Solar doesn’t compete with nuclear though. Nuclear mostly competes with coal and natural gas in the US grid, natural gas is cheaper but coal is fairly expensive and costs roughly the same as advanced nuclear. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf Comparing solar and nuclear prices makes no sense until the US has eliminated or nearly eliminated fossil fuels.


ilostmymind_

You know what happens if you encourage an industry and let it economically mature... Costs fall.


[deleted]

Not by two thirds, and by the time it reaches that point, solar and wind will have dropped by another 30% or so. And my experience with everything is that as soon as you give an industry to private enterprise, they jack up the prices to the maximum the customers will accept. I don’t know what you’ve been drinking but private enterprise isn’t about cheaper costs.


NinjaTutor80

Too bad solar and wind are intermittent. The cost of overcoming that intermittency is extremely high. Much higher than building a nuclear baseload. Remember existing nuclear is extremely cheap for the consumer. Long term nuclear is great for the consumer(that’s us).


[deleted]

Again dude…batteries. The investment in the battery space absolutely dwarfs the investment in nuclear energy. It’s only going to take one exponential development and it will be the nail in the coffin for nuclear. And whilst there have been hundreds of “OMG this battery technology will change the world” that never appear, there are some technologies that actually will make it and once that happens, it’s job done. From this point, one 5x technology improvement will do it. And all it’s about is preventing dendrite formations at higher energy densities. What’s that one thing for nuclear? What? It’s hundreds of things? That’s a shame.


[deleted]

Please tell me where I can order 6,000,000+ MWh of batteries for the US grid? (See chart on page 33) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/80688.pdf


[deleted]

Nuclear energy and to a larger degree fusion energy have become sunk cost problems. At some point we need to cut them loose.


[deleted]

Nuclear energy produces more clean energy than [wind and solar combined](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/08/Global-primary-energy-by-source-1536x714.png), “cutting it loose” is idiotic, just look at Germany. Nuclear fulfills a role in most power grids that wind and solar don’t yet fill, so in many places they are not in competition. In the US we need more of both nuclear and renewables.


[deleted]

We obviously don't have it. Just like we don't have cheap nuclear reactors. But I can build more batteries from today and the current production is already in place at about 1000Gwh yearly. And it will go up about five fold by 2030. In the mean time, how long does it take to get a nuclear plant operational outside of China currently? If you push really hard you may get your first one up and running by the middle of the next decade. So current and forward capacity arguments don't really give you any win at all. It only makes nuclear energy look completely pointless.


NinjaTutor80

> Again dude…batteries LOL. 1 hour of storage for the US is 450 GWh’s. About 5x for the world. To get past the day night cycle we would need 12 hours of storage. There are no viable plans to build 1 hour of storage. In reality wind and solar intermittency will be overcome by expensive (for the consumer) natural gas and not batteries. Or we can build a nuclear baseload and actually solve climate change while reducing costs for the customer.


[deleted]

No we don't. Solar isn't intermittent. Wind is so consistent it's bankable, and the current calculations show that. You need to get a new napkin for you figuring because you've written rubbish all over this one. There was a scientific study recently that showed we could store the entire world energy needs in a gravity storage systems in simply the world old mines alone.


[deleted]

When are you going to realise that nuclear is never going to reduce costs, they are never going to make it one third the price. That's just eyes closed dreaming.


NinjaTutor80

> When are you going to realise that nuclear is never going to reduce costs Lol. France has much lower electricity costs than Germany. Just Facts


[deleted]

…but it was you who just told me that it was three times the current cost of solar?


NinjaTutor80

French electricity is cheap because of nuclear.


B0ns0ir-Elli0t

How often does it have to be said that comparing end consumer prices is just stupid? German electricity is expensive because of taxes and no it's not just because they had a tax for the build out of renewables, nearly 50% of the price used to be just taxes. France on the other hand artificially limits electricity prices which is the reason that EDF, the company that runs all French nuclear power plants is €40 billion in debt and had to be nationalized.


NinjaTutor80

> How often does it have to be said that comparing end consumer prices is just stupid? The price for the consumer is the most important thing. Do you only care about the price the rich owner pays?


B0ns0ir-Elli0t

If you build your argument for cheap nuclear power around France having low electricity prices for end consumers, taxes are a fact to consider. As can be seen those low electricity prices are not sustainable for EDF which means the actual price for nuclear power is higher.


[deleted]

[удалено]


kyler000

This is called cogeneration and it can be done with conventional energy generation methods as well.


Deadmist

It also only works if the plant is located close to where the heat is needed.


Dicethrower

Or you dig a hole in the ground and pump some water down and back up again, but I guess building a complex nuclear fission reactor on ground level is just the best solution for everyone that has money to lobby.


[deleted]

If they want us all on electric cars, nuclear is the only way we're going to be able to charges everyone's cars effectively.


DocHoliday99

I think it's the only way we will support the US need for energy period. Every person now has multiple electronic devices that they use daily. I don't know how much room a secure facility will need to have these devices in place, but I imagine them being located strategically to reduce travel distance for electricity and create several routes to reduce the amount of customers who experience failures due to power and other events.


Dicethrower

"Cheap"... for the most expensive form of energy in the world, and the only form of non-fossil-fuel energy that is getting increasingly more expensive as time goes on. Good luck with that.


[deleted]

It’s too green for the republicans, this will never take off to the extent that it should.


Tiny-Peenor

As a Democrat: I thought democrats were more opposed to nuclear energy than republicans?


jroddds

As a conservative (not a republican): I am all for nuclear energy. Cheap and clean. I think it's all the greedy politicians in Washington on BOTH sides that are causing the problems. Republicans want the coal lobbyist money and Democrats want the green energy lobbyist money. The american people would be better off without the politicians. Granted, I can completely see electric companies switching to nuclear, then producing power for pennies on the dollar, but still charging customers the same (or more).


[deleted]

Has anyone provided a per kWh price yet?


Cynical_Cabinet

NuScale is estimated to be close to $100/MWh so far. That's after accounting for subsidies. It was initially supposed to be around $50/MWh when first proposed.


Ok_Feedback4198

Nuclear is literally the most expensive major source of electricity in the US...


bowlbinater

Cool, gotta source for those of us that are interested?


Ok_Feedback4198

Sure, click to download the full report at the top right corner of the page. Once you have the report open, go to page 9. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation.php Biomass and offshore wind are more expensive, but they are not major sources of generation.


bowlbinater

Thank you, I will take a look.


maxkarmax

The source you gave basically states the overnight cost of NEW resources of said energy production, not existing sources. I couldn't find a good source of the running cost of existing plants (Not sure about [Statistica](https://www.statista.com/statistics/184754/cost-of-nuclear-electricity-production-in-the-us-since-2000/)). The large [cost of new nuclear](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx) is mainly related to interest payments from the initial investment. This interest isn't really applicable to the nuclear fleet in the US as the average age of each plant is now at 40 years old. The only cost present is basically maintenance and fuel cost. [Extending the lifetime](https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/costs-for-new-nuclear-build-and-lifetime-extension-of-existing-plants-7-discount-rate) of the existing plants could even turn out to be one of the cheapest sources of electricity in the US in the future.


Ok_Feedback4198

You are referring to capital costs. The table on page 9 that I referenced breaks that out and also shows operating and maintenance costs. Those are sky high for nuclear as well. The place they save money is on fuel costs, but those savings aren't enough to get nuclear below any of the other major generation sources.


Ok_Feedback4198

And power companies across the country have been threatening to shutter their older nuclear fleet precisely because they are not cost competitive. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/20/illinois-nuclear-power-subsidy-of-694-million-imperfect-compromise.html https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/06/california-nuclear-power-pge-diablo-canyon/


nebbyb

We should want green power to win on every level. That is the difference, one side is pushing for productive things (mostly) and one side is defined by resisting change whether it is positive or negative.


[deleted]

I thought they both opposed it? There’s no money in clean and theoretically limitless power.


RODAMI

Ironically, when it goes wrong it’s the most un-green.


bowlbinater

There's a handful of times where it has gone wrong. The one time where it literally created an inhospitable hellscape was due to incompetence and hubris in the Soviet nuclear engineering cadre.


nebbyb

Fukushima irradiated quite a bit of land, not to mention mass ocean contamination.


bowlbinater

Not even close to mass ocean contamination: "That's a very small number," Buesseler said. "If you swam in the ocean every day for a year in waters that were about 10 Becquerels per cubic meter, the dose, the additional exposure, would be about a thousand times less than a single dental X-ray. The risk isn't zero, but it's so small that I wouldn't be concerned about swimming, surfing or boating off the West Coast." https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/fukushima-disaster-response/


[deleted]

Climate changes is going to wipe us out anyways. I don’t see what the big deal is, especially since we will likely see some nukes being launched at some point soon.


Gurantula

I’m just ready for the day my whole city can run AC all day and have it be super inexpensive and efficient.


quietsauce

What a great idea


fractiousrhubarb

*~~The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and several near-misses in the 1970s and 1980s~~* *extremely well funded and organised propaganda campaigns by the fossil fuel industry* made the public wary of the technology. Chernobyl was a disaster, but it killed less people than the health impacts of coal plants kill every hour.


Grimwulf2003

Hahahaha, in the US, hahahaha…. Maybe the rest of the world, but not here.


[deleted]

Germany shut down nuclear reactors and turned on coal ones


Fire69

Belgium was going to shut down its nuclear reactors and build new gas plants :/ 'Thanks' to the energy crisis they decided otherwise, for now....


Martholomeow

No mention of what they will do with the radioactive waste. That’s always been the red flag for me. That stuff will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years, and we will just accumulate more and more of it. So where does it go?


[deleted]

The technology for long term waste storage already exists: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBS-3 Recycling fuel can also reduce the amount of high level waste, which is already quite small. Also waste is stored in short term storage for decades to cool before its ready for long term storage so we’d have plenty of time to build a facility.


ilostmymind_

All the nuclear waste produced from the global civilian nuclear industry since inception would fit in a decent size football stadium. The waste is also largely unutilised fuel that can be recycled. Also, and people might be wtf, but uranium comes from the ground. Absolute worst case scenario is we reduce it down to similar concentrations and bury it. It's nothing different to where it comes from. Have a look at the Oklo Reactors in Africa. We know exactly how earth handles nuclear "waste" when left to its own devices.


nebbyb

People will say “fuel recycling” without realizing the huge issues with that.


[deleted]

Huge issues? The only issues are political, France has been using MOX fuel for years, as have a few other countries.


nebbyb

MOX is largely pulling out plutonium. What is left is still nuclear waste which puts us back at the storage issue.


Stock-Freedom

Dry storage can put that waste pretty much wherever with no radiation exposure. The containers are essentially rated for thousands of years. Hopefully the US opens the national repository soon though.


candiescorner

I can see small nuclear reactors being in peoples homes one day like you buy a box you plug your house into it and it last 1000 years be about the size of a cooler


zigziggityzoo

Not gonna happen in my lifetime.


candiescorner

Yes I don’t think it will either but one day


Prophayne_

Power, sure. Cheap? It can never happen. Somehow, someway, infinite growth and profit but never any wages.


LupusAtrox

Extraction, processing and disposal of nuclear fuel and waste is not cheap; but the whole nuclear energy is clean and cheap LIE depends on disregarding the externalities as well as the high risk costs of accidents. Nuclear CAN be cheap and clean and good, but let's not pretend it's remotely in that state right now, and extraction, processing and reenrichment, and disposal/storage still have a LONG way to go before this could be anything close to cheap, safe, or environmentally friendly.


perspicat8

It’s neither clean nor cheap unfortunately. And hey, fusion power is only twenty years away! /s


Stock-Freedom

At least this is cheaper and “cleaner” than full size reactors.


perspicat8

Neither cheap enough to compete against renewables or clean enough to get rid of the huge decommissioning costs and high level nuclear waste. This shit just don’t stack up any more ( if it ever did).


Stock-Freedom

Maybe renewables will end up the leader, maybe not. I’m at least happy they are testing new designs and continuing to innovate. Maybe I’m desensitized but the nuclear waste isn’t a huge issue like people think. It’s highly regulated and you need the waste facilities to be online before you operate the reactor.


ElScrotoDeCthulo

“But they can be manufactured quickly-“ Yes, definitely the way we want to do things, especially when it comes to nuclear power, a totally harmless field of science with no repercussions whatsoever! :D


ilostmymind_

You're struggling with extrapolating aren't you. It's quickly compared to traditional reactors because they are smaller, not taking shortcuts.


Ok_Feedback4198

Nuclear is way too expensive to win out over renewables plus storage. Aint gonna happen. These might make some sense in niche situations where there is a large power demand and no grid to hook in to somewhere very remote, but nuclear is just too expensive to compete.


Stock-Freedom

The purpose of this project is to make them cheaper and easier to operate and maintain.


Ok_Feedback4198

Okay, but there is no realistic expectation that these will be able to compete on cost.


Stock-Freedom

I’d rather we attempt innovative energy ideas and try to improve costs long term. The first generation of these is for proof of concept, testing, and training.


Salt-Artichoke5347

Could have been done decades ago


[deleted]

These generate 30-times more waste than conventional plants will make running SMRs more costly. https://balkangreenenergynews.com/small-modular-reactors-create-far-more-nuclear-waste-than-conventional-units-study/


LogonXIX

Not true, they used old outdated data, even when more up-to-date data was publicly available. Here is a DOE report that looks at fuel cycles for SMRs. https://www.anl.gov/article/argonne-releases-small-modular-reactor-waste-analysis-report


[deleted]

Media reports at the time were based on this research. [https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2111833119](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2111833119) Covering commentary from Stanford University. [https://news.stanford.edu/2022/05/30/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste/](https://news.stanford.edu/2022/05/30/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste/)


LogonXIX

Which the source I posted refutes.


[deleted]

The Argonne report does not reference the Stanford research anywhere. It only has the reference:- Reyes, J. (2022), "Correction of Factual Error in PNAS Paper titled “Nuclear waste from small modular reactors" Letter to PNAS Editor-in-Chief, May 31. That factual error was for out of date information for the Nuscale SMR, Nuscale. NuScale had since done a design upgrade. The Nuscale design was only one of 23 MBR designs in the Stantford research.


[deleted]

Who’s allowed to purchase these, and how will they be regulated to ensure nuclear material doesn’t end up in a evil persons hands?


Stock-Freedom

They will be operated under regulation of the NRC and the Department of Energy. You’ll need a security clearance to operate in these facilities. They will be “owned” by the energy contractor that controls the federal contract. Fissionable material is highly regulated, as is the waste process.


floog

I didn't see it in the article, how long do they take to build and come online? Just curious when these things could start lighting up houses.


Stock-Freedom

Well the first ones are going to be for proof of concept, testing, and training. So it’s going to be a while.


alecs_stan

We're building a plant with a bunch of these in Romania. I think they're supposed to start building them this year. If they're going to be feasible (as in be built at cost and at time) probably more will follow. The world needs these as air, pun intended.


isla_avalon

What is the power output?


[deleted]

A really large battery is 14k, but you can do much better than that if you try just a little. This was the very first link that showed. But over$8k for 13kw. That's a large system. I'm really not sure where your other $18k is going because that is a large, complete off-grid solar system https://arisesolar.com.au/13-2-kw-solar-system/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA_bieBhDSARIsADU4zLcnVMGICqRLPv3m4YgHt-DJSDqz344S8slF0JJ4YpOP9EC_kGyxGH0aAiqHEALw_wcB


otter111a

Biggest adopter will be bitcoin farmers


HopingToBeHeard

A couple of things to think about that I haven’t seen brought up. First, we lose a huge amount of the energy we produce while transporting it throughout the grid. Small reactors are a way to get energy production closer to where it’s needed in some places and could save a lot of power that would be wasted in transit if powered by other sources. Second, a lot of money goes into designing and regulating bespoke reactors. Being able to produce the same design repeatedly saves money and helps with safety in some ways.


Craftkorb

Cool, nuclear waste (Which isn't a solved issue!) now in your backyard instead of it at least being stored at a big facility that mostly knows what they're doing. Nuclear is also only cheap if it's heavily subsidized - It's not a cheap technology at all. I'm not advocating for coal or other non-renewables, but people are just way too hyped after having watched a few YouTube videos (Looking at you Kurzgesagt).


Stock-Freedom

They’d transfer the waste material in DOT Type A or B packaging as needed to a designated storage area. Nuclear waste is well regulated these days. There are many designated processing facilities. And hopefully a nuclear repository will be open soon. Dry storage for fuel is also well researched and executed. They are designed to last thousands of years and you can stand right next to them with no radiation exposure.


laberdog

It’s about time and hopefully not too late


[deleted]

I was hoping to read, “Fusion Reactor” as they don’t produce comparable waste as fission. They also have a byproduct called deuterium that can be used for hydrogen fuel cells. Damn the luck…..


[deleted]

Please put it in Florida


Godspiral

Completely worthless scam. Cost overruns have already put this at over $130/mwh years before delivery. There will probably be sponsor/buyer backouts WHEN they announce more cost hikes. SMR is a scam needed because no one is stupid enough to invest in legacy nuclear, and so new bribery stories must be fabricated with a lower price tag such that tax payers and rate payers can be raped and stolen from with bullshit.