Small Nuclear Reactors Have A Big Problem
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- Use code sabine at incogni.com/sa... to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan.
Small modular nuclear reactors are supposed to fix the problem of conventional nuclear reactors being too expensive and time-consuming to build. But we’ve been hearing about how promising they are for 15 years now. So where are they? A report that just appeared sheds light on what happened.
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.sub...
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfe...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.c...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #nuclear #technews #tech
An old boss of mine used to say that the best way to estimate the cost and/or lead time for any given project was to ask an expert then triple the answer. I never saw anything to contradict this.
I've always heard double, but triple works too!
In software, it's double the number and increase the units by one step. Two weeks? That will probably end up taking four months, etc.
More like 5x the time and money imho
But if a government contract is involved, it would be best to estimate the cost ten times that of the proposal.
@@harrydecker8731 Listen, lets not deprive the boys overseas of the tools they need to prosecute the war. Just write them out a blank check for all the expensive destructive toys they could ever want, while we eat stone soup back home!
Everyone obsesses over the next breakthrough, but what we really need is standardization and scale. If we focused on building more light-water reactors and streamlining regulations instead of constantly chasing new reactor designs, we could decarbonize the grid much more quickly.
Good point
Agreed. However could not the same be said for producing SMR at scale?
@@msromike123no? Building it smaller makes it 9/10 times less efficient, especially if you need qualified personel to operate it, like in this case
@@msromike123The original trend in nuclear power was to become larger, because it’s more efficient: less money to build per MW, and uses the fuel more efficiently. So the idea of scaling them down has always seemed weird to me. Economies of scale could apply just as easily to full size reactors, and in fact it used to - General Electric built a ton of them used all around the world.
This is literally what Rolls Royce are doing with SMRs. The issue is not the design, that's been done in subs for decades. The issue is making it manufacturable and scalable at a reasonable time and production cost
I worked at an engineering consulting company with a guy who was assigned to a nuclear reactor project. It sucked the soul out of him slowly, as not a single design decision could be made due to the review process required for every aspect of every part. He floundered for years with no progress.
I know two engineers working on SMRs and both of them play videogames 8+ hours a day. No reason to do work when you have to wait weeks/months between reviews.
@ that’s one sign of an engineer with no soul 😂
@@1Heirborn Sounds like we need a more space x like development cycle for SMR's. Now if we only had an extra planet or two that we didn't care got irradiated it might even work out brilliantly. A true glowing beacon of quick iteration.
It might sound like I'm against the idea, but really, since you can't do it on earth, why not do it off earth?
@@1Heirborn That sounds like a great job! Damn I wish inefficiency was as comfortable as that in other jobs...
@@Niskirin Chernobyl 2.0
As an Argentine, CAREM's costs come mainly from corruption and inflation rates. Atucha II, Argentina's third-largest nuclear power plant, took nearly 30 years to build and costs soared from $2.5 billion to $15 billion. Every government-funded project in Argentina is delayed so that more people can put more public money in their pockets. It is a miracle that some projects are finished.
Vote blue no matter who.
Nah, the problem is the same everywhere for nuclear plants. Argentina isn't special when it comes to nuclear.
Corruption in small projects is a small problem. In a bigger projects it's a bigger problem. Not so long ago there was some pledge to build a reactor in Nigeria... and I thought "Hm, some people are really going to like this..."
@@lonyo5377 I think his main point was corruption in Argentina, not nuclear power.
That’s the story of almost every nuclear project anywhere. Look at the corruption scandal at Vogtle for example.
as an Argentinian, I can totally figure out where the x7 increase of budgent went. I´m assuming the budget is in USD because if it´s in our currency I´m shocked it didn´t went even higher
@@LUCTIANITO Didn’t Argentina buy Candu reactors?
@@ericdempster Only one: Embalse. It was in the past century's seventies.
From what I've read, compared to land-based nuclear reactors, the reactors used in US, Russian, and British submarines are generally limited to about 165MW, drive turboshaft props directly rather than generating electricity to drive electric engines, use more highly enriched uranium that might otherwise be the focus of proliferation concerns, and overall have fewer safety mechanisms due to the limited space. So, it might not be very easy or cheap to safely convert them to small commercial land-based modular reactors. Perhaps SMR startup investors hoped they could use submarine reactors as a basis for product design, but underestimated the cost and effort to meet the necessary safety standards. But I'm not a nuclear engineer and I'm sure others will weigh in on this.
No Navy will discuss their reactors.
and another problem with safety that they don't have on ships and submarines: emergency cooling
on a ship or submarine, you can just dump bilgewater into the system to cool it in an emergency circumstance, but unless you have your reactor hooked directly to a fire hydrant or natural water source, you can't easily do that on land.
@@eveleynce Dumping seawater into the primary will more or less permanently brick that reactor. There's no point in doing it.
Rather, these reactors are small enough that you can rely on passive cooling in the RPV and primary circuit, the decay heat may not even be sufficient to melt the fuel elements even without any water in the core... In fact newer subs can even run the reactor at reduced power entirely passively, and turn the main shaft at a reduced power, without having to use primary pumps that are a source of noise.
On land the Gen 3 passive safety is usually accomplished by having large water tanks at an elevated position (like on top of the containment building) where you can rely on gravity to feed that water if needed.
This is because of the same old problem. Nuclear power is insanely over regulated. In comparison the old Chernobyl design is by estimate some 100 times safer than coal, while modern designs are some 10,000 times safer.
Nah, Issue is that SMNR got federal grant money, they never really expected to produce a commerical product. it was all about getting gov't funding.
Utilities have zero interest in new nuclear power plants, Small reactors are far far less economical than the big reactors. You still have to do all the same regulatory filings per reactor, no matter the size. Why spend the cost for 8 or more SMNR when you can just do one big reactor. Second issue is that the world is running out of economically recoverable uranium & most of the high grade ore sites are in unstable regions (Africa, kazakhstan, etc). Uranium production peaked in 1980 & has been falling since. the World will likely run out of economically recoverable uranium ore around 2050. Utilities Execs are aware of this issue & don't want to deal with the 20 year time frame to get a new reactor on line, only to see uranium fuel costs spike to the moon.
I'm extremely pro-nuclear and have worked in the nuclear power industry. However, the SMR concept has had some major flaws from the start.
But, lets correct the data on the NuScale plant. The final proposal was to build 6 Power Units of 77 MWe for a total of 462 MWe (and not 12 Units of 50 MWe = 600 MWe).
Estimated cost came in at $9.5 Billion, with and expected inflation escalation of $1 Billion during construction for a total estimated cost of $10.5 Billion.
Based on the VC Summer and Vogtle lessons learned from the AP1000 construction mistakes (1150 MWe give or take some based on local conditions) it was estimated that you could have built a AP1000 unit for about the same amount of money which would have required about the same amount of staff (2.44 more generation for the same money). Note that other countries with experienced nuclear construction crews have built the AP1000 units on time and on budget.
The biggest flaw with the SMR concept has been known since the late 1970's. If you double the size of the nuclear power plant you need about 40% more materials, it cost about 40% more to build, and you likely do not even need to increase staff size. When the Power Unit gets large enough to need a staff size increase - the staff size increase is minor to modest. That is why virtually all nuclear power plants are 1GWe (1000 MWe) or larger. Base economics of scale drives you to build the largest plant you can - if you need that much nuclear power (you do see a small amount of 500-900 MWe plants as that much better matches the power needs of the country or area). The USA built what would be consider 17 SMRs in the 1960's and 1970's. They were all shut down as uneconomical once larger plants came online (and in a number of cases just due to staffing cost on a per MWhr basis).
The next biggest flaw is the concept of "standard design" that can be massed produced (and mass produced is a flawed concept by itself). Each nuclear power plant has to be designed to withstand the local worst case natural disaster for where the plant is being build. Major factors that affect the sturctual design of a nuclear power plant is how bad of a earthquake does it need to withstand. I've worked in nuclear plants in the Midwest USA with very mild earthquake design requirements. I've done consulting job in California in known active fault areas with expected much more severe earthquakes. Everything from the thickness of the reactor vessel and other tanks, piping thickness, structural steel thickness (and spacing), required pipe supports, how thick and strong the floors are - are radically different. In the 3 plants I have worked in in the midwest I-beams were about twice the thickness of fossil plants in the area (I previously worked in fossil plants in the Midwest). In California the I-beams were 3-4 times as thick as the nuclear plants in the USA and they were spaced a lot closer. I've never seen so many and so large of piping supports either.
Many other natural disaster factors exist: Flooding risk, hurricane or tornado risk (and tornado are worse than hurricanes), Volcano risk (the Idaho NuScale Plant had to plan for a major Volcano eruption both upwind and relatively local to the plant), etc.
The concept of a "standard designed" component that you could mass produce for use in all nuclear power plant sites for the Safety Related Nuclear components - does not exist. No one wants to pay for a component designed for the worst case - unless they are in a worst case design area. It would massively increase the cost of other nuclear power plant.
Mass production requires 3 things.
1) That you are producing large numbers of at least essentially the same item (minor variations allowed) in sufficient numbers to make sense to mass produce them. Both Airbus and Boeing has Commercial Aircraft models where they are producing essentially over 100 per year, with model runs lasting over a decade. Yet, these are all essentially hand assembled as its not worth the cost to build a factory to mass produce them. There is a very apt real world comparison.
2) That you have a design that has been proven to work. There is not a single SMR design that has proven it can run reliably and cost effectively for many decades. The history of the nuclear power industry worldwide shows that even what appears to be great concepts on paper just have not worked in real life. The USA build over 100 Light Water reactors using something like 70+ different designs in some way in the 1960's - 1990's. A number of plants performed so badly that they were shut down very prematurely. A lot of the others never had the license extended and shut down at or near the end of their original license. Many plants in the USA often spent tens of $millions modifying systems and components to designs that actually worked in real life.
The only reason we now have long term reliable light water nuclear power plants is that we have had decades of lessons for each system and component in a nuclear power plant as to what works long term reliable, low maintenance cost, and reasonable to operate. The AP1000 design (a 3rd generation commercial plant design) incorporated the best design for every component and system based on 4-5 decades of experience with all the different experiments.
While the SMRs can borrow some of those "best practices" many of the light water reactor and plant designs I have looked at have key elements that are totally new concepts that have never been previously built (1st generation design - and forget that they call it a 4th generation reactor - its still a 1st generation design for what they are trying). No one knows if they will actually work long term as reliable and economical design concepts (and virtually none of the non-light water plant have ever had a successful commercial plant ever in the world).
So there are no "proven designs" that we know will actually work out long term. Industry data suggest that it will take at least 2 decades of operation of any of these designs before we have a good idea if it will really work out long term.
3) That you have the 5+ years to build and troubleshoot a plant that could automate much of the production to get the economics of mass production for various large components. No one is talking about this at all...
Until those 3 conditions are met - all major components for nuclear power plants will be built the same way they are now and have historically been built. One to a small batch at a time: Example I worked at one plant design where there were 6 Power Plant Units built of that design - and 5 of them are still running- so every major nuclear and safety related component was built in a batch of 6+ in the late 1960's and early 1970's (in some cases spares were produced). There will be no cost savings from mass production for SMRs.
Moving past the mass production issue: Most SMR proponents are all talking about how skids can be factory built and moved to site - and then the pipes can just be welded together and connecting wires run to save time and money in construction.
This has been tried at least twice for fossil plants. Total cost and schedule disaster. One of those ideas that looks good as a concept, but requires a level of quality and dimensional control in the factory producing the skids that so far has not been demonstrated to exist. It so far has been demonstrated to be cheaper to just build a normal seismically designed metal framework for the site (be it an industrial plant, a fossil power plant, etc), bring in the pre-assembled major components (Like has always been done) and field built connecting piping and wiring.
Now there may be a place for a few SMRs where you are geologically isolated and only need a small nuclear power plant. However, economics of scale and other factors drive you to large central stations.
Last time I looked (some months ago) there were 9 Westinghouse AP1000 design plants under construction in the world, excluding Vogtle 4 which has now started up: 3 AP1000's and 6 Chinese CAP1400's (The Chinese hired Westinghouse to design a larger licensed version - their CAP1400 - about 1500 MWe), and about a dozen more where the AP1000 contracts were being negotiated. I have heard that some of these contracts being negotiated at the time have been signed - so there are now more than the 9 I researched some months ago (and I'm not going to research things now).
There are about 60 large central station nuclear power plants under construction in the world at this time, with an average completion time of about 6 years.
Both the French and Germans have admitted that the EPR reactor design needs to be modified, and no new plants will be started (and all existing plants are struggling, in part due to the design flaws that they made). I'm not holding my breath as due to French ego and pride but I think the French would be far ahead to just adopt the AP1000 and get moving. The 4 AP1000 China built has proven itself and directly against the 2 EPRs that China built. The AP1000 is the more economical and reliable large central station plant.
I feel I learned a lot there. Thanks for that.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Why cant we just mass produce small nuclear reactors like the ones found on nuclear submarines? They have been around since the 1950s so i imagine they are proven. I also imagine a submarine puts up with way more than what natural disasters can do....
Just a correction for the EPR, the UK will build at least two more (Sizewell C)
But yeah I agree, would should have prepared the certification of the AP1000 instead of working on the EPR2
But now unfrortunately it's too late and there have been way too much money invested in the EPR2 to not build it
Outstanding overview.
@@drevilatwork A military submarine would be built to protect against very different hazards, no? And I suspect the reactor (and entire submarine) does not actually survive some of those, but it's accepted to let things end up at the bottom of the ocean in those scenarios.
Hopium has a 75 year half life,...
New element on the "island of stability"?😅
I read recently that Hopium decays to Factinium 101 a very stable element sometimes alloyed with Allurium or Futilium to create Wishalloy which has interesting properties but no practical application. :-)
Hopium decays into Copium that has a similar half life.
But it's also easy to overdose on hopium.
Actually it's more like 10 years, and it's also highly reactive to all the Wordium particles, and any stray Wordium can interact with Hopium, causing it to decay to Disheartium, or even Depressium, but the good part is Wordium also interacts with Disheartium and Depressium which causes a subatomic particle to decay, turning Depressium back into Hopium, and Disheartium into Excitanium
8 Years ago i was having a chat with an old workmate who now works in France for EDF/SMR as an engineer. He was telling me that one of the major stalling issues they ran into was there are no high skilled welders. France and other countries didnt think they needed these highly skilled workforce and over years they let tehir trades dissapear, prefering to get production from China. Now their rare, not only because among 1000 welders only 1 is tallented enough, but the pay was not good. And the welds on teh reactor have to be perfect.
Thanks!
The problem is economies of scale. For each doubling of production capacity, the unit cost goes down by about 20%. Consequently, the unit cost of a kWh from a small reactor is almost certainly more expensive than the standard 1,000 MW facility.
I think the idea is to isolate the extremely power hungry industries from the power grid, or at least let them supply a majority of their own power, so that the grid can now have the overhead to supply the rest of us and all the electric cars we're supposed to be buying but can't afford. Plus, adopting nuclear at a smaller scale successfully might help fight off the nuclear panic we all got after chernobyl, so larger facilities can be funded again.
Yes, if the cost is driven by construction materials, but I don't think it is.
@@SabineHossenfelder The cost is definitely driven by the complexity of the construction and systems-coupling, rather than just the materials- Perrow's famous quadrants definitely put nuclear reactors in the right place. Reactors almost always end up individual, essentially bespoke programs because the sensitivity of their systems behavior to small changes in parameters due to inescapable manufacturing and assembly variation requires active, individualized management and re-engineering
It's a battle between economies of scale in two dimensions though: economies of the reactor itself (favoring larger) and economies of manufacturing scale (favoring mass production of units that fit in shipping containers). Nuclear engineers look at solar jealously because manufacturing scale is huge there, SMRs are an attempt to get something similar. I'm not sure it'll work but I think that's the motivation.
It's hard to compare a product that can be sold with a huge facility that has land, employees, etc.
These projects are viable on paper. If they ever are actually manufactured the energy cost would be competitive
There something I'd like to tell you Sabine Hossenfelder. I'm a 54 year old black man. Growing up in the 70s.... there was a " belief" in America that black people had no love or aptitude for Math and Science. A part of me internalized that belief. And then I saw your video on quantum physics..... and I understood it. Thank you for proving to the 9 year old boy in me and me....... that I am capable of understanding anything... to include science. Ma'am .....you have my gratitude.☺️👍🏿🇺🇲
An addendum: my apologies if my gratitude makes you feel uncomfortable. I sometimes forget not every culture is okay with open displays of sentimentality😂😂😂 however you still have my gratitude Ma'am.😊
So what? White men can't jump...
Way to go man. Sometimes teachers just don’t see people’s talent and then you don’t realise it either. It wasn’t until I left school that I found it I had a talent for IT. I couldn’t understand how people found it difficult. School let me down but I’ve built myself up. Keep believing in yourself and learning on UA-cam.
@@galemartin9155 she's beyond any doubt a brilliant communicator
You never heard of Neil DeGrease Tyson before?
“Don't quote me regulations...I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation is in...we kept it gray.” - the EU
Funny thing about EU is that most of the people don't want this craziness, but 90% of countries representations in EP, EC, EUCO do want it in it's whole entirety ;) They are jumping on sheer thought of it ;)
Ah yes, very neutral. Also, if you see my wife, tell her I said "Hello".
From CoPilot: That quote is from the animated television show Futurama. It's spoken by the character Number 1.0, the highest-ranking bureaucrat in the Central Bureaucracy, in the episode "How Hermes Requisitioned His Groove Back" from Season 2, Episode 11
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
@@David-l6c3w Came here to say that. I used to own it on boxset dvd, when some scumbags robbed my student house they took everything (including my dvd's) except the shitty old TV. I had taken my ps2 home for the holidays, inside was that episode on DVD. My only possession left in the World.
Thanks
shared this with a friend, and his response has me thinking - "Strange this should be a problem when something similar has been powering submarines and aircraft carriers for more than 60 years. "
Probably because they have an infinite heat sink around them that land-based operations don't have.
Well, "cheap and easy" isn't exactly the first thing that comes to mind when you think about nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers, is it?^^
@@kinjalbasu1999 a pool of water?
No comparison between military (USN) nukes and commercial. For one thing the uranium in the Navy nukes is highly enriched (98% vs 2% for commercial). I was a reactor operator in the Navy.
Totally different designs. Also, fuel is weapons grade.
Thank you Sabine. As you know it's so hard to come by well researched information delivered crisply. You are a blessing. Best of luck and good fortune to you.
SMR doesn't have any problems. They work perfectly for their intended role, which is separating fools from their money.
The most reactionary (but true!) statement that Sabine has ever said: "But we need to look at the facts, even if we don't like them".
Imagine that actually happening.
Corporates, politics And churches would look like bunch of ...? ... Idiots? .... Criminals?....Idiotic criminals?
Truer words have never been said.
@@johnblakeH are you sure she is reactionary? I am sure she isn't. If you substitute pragmatic for reactionary I think you nailed it.
To quote Mark Twain: " They looked at the facts, saw the right thing to do, and scrupulously avoided it.
That's the opposite of "reactionary" bro.
Regulatory uncertainly also makes for difficulty in making estimates. This is a huge issue - I worked on IT projects where compliance was a key issuye and the endless changes to the regulations were maddening, and expensive.
The trouble I see with almost all energy products is, the product does not show what means are being developed to handle the “ What’s left when the product end of life is reached” this is very frustrating. Thank you, keep up the informative work.
Thanks for sharing Sabine
You are awesome Sabine!
I'm puzzled that this is proving so difficult. We've been building small nuclear reactors to power submarines and aircraft carriers for years.
Perhaps the new players in this arena are finding they have a lot more to learn than they expected, but at least the incumbent suppliers of reactors to the military should have a good idea of how to build reliable SMRs at a predictable cost. Why haven’t they accomplished that by now?
Submarines and carriers also go way over budget.
Some of the big reason is due to the majority of smart women that pass their smart genes to their males heirs, has shrunk due to smart women not having children. We are in effective, entering a serious brain drain due to fragile male egos and that smart women are now very few in numbers to previous generations.
Military means State Secret, you wouldn't want China to stole it, right! Imagine, China had Nuclear Powered Military Hardware.
@@AnnNunnally Is that because of their reactors?
Probably it's only a small part of it
@@foxtrotunit1269 The reactor is the most classified and sensitive part of either of those vessels, which are the most advanced weapons systems anywhere in the world. A small, but central part of it.
The size of most projects have grown beyond what we can manage these days, because we don’t have enough specialists (people who actually know what they’re doing) anymore. I’ve worked on many very large projects over the last 30 years and in a lot of them half the money spent was on people and companies that didn’t actually provide any productivity to the project.
According to the seminal Rand study " Why large projects fail", the key reasons are two.
1. The team has never done this before or not in this difficult location.
2. Budgets were baselined before the scope of work was completed and verified, and actual bids on all completed bid packages were received.
Start at 50% overruns for things completely specified and done before to 400% for proceeding with incomplete work scope by a new team.
Look for the ongoing CA high speed rail farce to exceed the original $10B budget by 100x before it is stopped. Scope, land purchases, boring technology, timeline, methods, funding and route not yet baselined. 10 years into the project.
I am not a nuclear expert, but I have been in the IT industry for quite some time and all industries are terrible at driving innovation. Every little thing we have started in university, and in good universities, results are not (entirely) linked with funding. That's why private money in good universities don't work well, universities are money sinks, but they get cool stuff like the actual data the industry relies upon. Companies do not have that luxury. A business model where you hire a team and sinks large sum of money with no time point of success/failure is not a good business model (although some companies have an actual R&D that just does that - indefinite money sink that have very very small chance to get next billion dollar idea), but for the most companies, they always lag behind waiting for something to be well established.
And this is why SMR is bad. Sinking a few billion public money into a project that have very small chance of producing and reiterating new nuclear reactor design is good. Even if the project fails, there is data and knowledge you can learn from that, so your tax money well spend. But for a company, that is not good enough - sinking a few billion into a project that fails could end a company, even when the data collected is invaluable.
Cost on nuclear reactors can be brought down quite substantialy by using child labor in India. I moved two of my aviation parts mfg plants over thete a year ago and my labor costs have dropped by 95 percent.
Yeah no child labour is making aviation parts for you 🤣🤣
One of the safest, but more expensive, but more efficient, reactors is the Candu heavy water moderated system. Almost impossible to melt down. Very very efficient when up and running. Runs on yellow cake not super enriched U so much safer.
Which civil reactors run on "Super enriched uranium?"
The Titanic was almost impossible to sink. And then "it happens".
@@cestmoi1262and yet we still use ships as one of the most inexpensive methods of transportation 🤷♂️
@@cestmoi1262 Except it wasn't, it was poorly designed.
@@bobthebomb1596 It wasn't poorly designed, it was run outside its design envelope. Olympia didn't sink, but was the same design.
Aside from the interesting discussion on SMRs or what I like to refer to as "nuclear submariner breeders", I just have to say how appreciative I am of the perfectly balanced and clear sound mix in these Sabine Hossenfelder videos. Other youtubers need to learn the physics of sound mixing to sound this good.
Thank you for sharing this small nuclear reactors news Sabine. 💯👏
3:46
When someone says " they cost (X) times more than expected " , and never mention what was expected, it's exactly like saying " I'm looking to buy a new Porshe, and i was expecting to pay 10 000$.. but it's 10 times more expensive"
My thought exactly. I don't care how the cost compares to the estimate. I care how it compares to the alternative. If a modular reactor was expected to be a sixth the cost of a traditional one but ends up being half the cost, that's still a fantastic result.
@@thomasdalton1508 That only makes sense if the SMR makes at least half the amount of power that a traditional one does. The key word here is "small"
@@tonyharford4625 I mean cost per megawatt. The cost per reactor is obviously meaningless. I didn't think I needed to spell that out.
Hinkley Point C
2007 estimate £9 billion.
2020 estimate £42 billion.
Any further questions?
Electricity cost £128/MWh
@troglokev I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. That's one of the most expensive traditional reactors ever built. Comparing small modular reactors to that is not a realistic comparison. Nobody is ever going to follow the Hinkley Point C model again.
Not giving in to wishful thinking is really important
Thanks, Sabine. Let's hope that things improve in the nuclear department
moreover, lets hope even greener alternatives continue to be developped so this will not turn out to be another right wing distraction while nothing happens and their leaders get giant paychecks.
Yes, hope. It never runs out.
Agreed but this applies to all forms of renewables frankly.
@@simulatethat6099 True
@@DoctorOnkelap what did @choppacast JUST write about wishful thinking? We need actual solutions that work NOW, even if they aren't perfect, and when I say work, I mean work for the consumer, not for some unspecific and unrealistic "climate goals"
Thanks for this information. Sad to hear that the early results aren't living up to expectations. The idea is attractive: small reactors, moredistrubted across the grid makes a more robust system. I hope these problems can be overcome.
The problem is that the SMR-industry is filled with scams just burning investor-money as the only fuel. Noone actually dares to make a realistic plan with realistic estimates of time and cost. And if they did, investors would choose the cheaper, but false, promising startups instead.
We are not going anywhere until we have saturated the greed of the scammers just trying to make a quick buck on the false hopes.
That is the price of capitalism and the principle of always choosing the cheapest alternative, even if everyone knows it is fake.
If the early results are due to regulations, then the standardization should reduce costs long term
"small reactors, more distributed across the grid makes a more robust system". Exactly, but you've just described the greatest economic advantage of wind, solar and batteries - the very things that will forever keep SMRs commercially unviable.
"...like IKEAs modular sofa,.....but radioactive !!! ...." ... Oh , Sabine you had me in tears with that one ! :) LOL🤣🤣🤣
The US Navy been using “Small” “Modular” “reactors” for 60+ years. Unfortunately their tech and processes are highly controlled and confidential so commercial companies can’t leverage it so it’s like reinventing the proverbial wheel.
Military reactors are also very expensive per Gwh, and they rely on highly enriched uranium which is considered undesirable in the civil supply chain due to the higher risk of proliferation.
The Hitachi reactors have had cost overruns because of unexplained vibrations which caused instability.
Interesting, didn't know that. Good news I think as that sounds like a solvable problem!
This has to be a joke lmao
It is lol @@Trenz0
lmao
@@SabineHossenfelderIt took me a moment - but SJ is referring, well, to Hitachi's other... vibrating products 😅😆
I'm pro centralised fusion power - the one in the sky has been powering life on Earth as long as we've been around. The collectors on the ground keep on getting better, cheaper and faster to implement. They can also be distributed where the power is used.
The biggest attraction of Earth bound nuclear is that it is big, needing big money (usually from governments) and centralising profits (to big corporations).
Learn more, you obviously don't understand how the grid works.
This is about a fact.
***In an electrical grid, the power must be produced in real time, as it is being used; if supply to the grid is less than demand at any time, there will be a blackout. For the grid to function, supply and demand must be balanced at all times.***
Solar is intermittent obviously because we have nighttime. Wind is intermittent obviously because sometimes the wind doesn't blow (or blow strong enough).
However, if the public can be made to understand that loading the grid with intermittent power sources without backup means regular blackouts, and that backing up the United States grid with batteries would cost at least the equivalent of the US’s whole annual national income, and that backing up the intermittent sources without batteries (in the absence, at least, technologies that are hardly conceived of yet) means ramping up diesel, natural gas and coal generators and producing enough CO2 to render the whole exercise pointless, it will put the burden on those who think that it’s a good idea (Democrats) to go through with it in the next few years to justify themselves. So if the Democrats, who evidently do not understand the FACT of how electric grids function continue pushing the current energy policies, get ready for frequent blackouts / grid failures just like third world countries have.
You get what you vote for. (Tell a liberal the fact, they may not have ever been told it.)
The whole point behind SMR modules is that once you have constructed a factory to make the first one, the second and successive modules drop rapidly in cost-unless, of course, the factory costs more to run than the SMRs are worth.
Tell that to the APR Cheerleaders at Georgia Power ..., who now have saddled the ratepayers with UNICORN REACTORS because NOBODY ELSE HAS BUILT AND BROUGHT ON LINE THEIR OWN APRS TO SUPPORT THE ECONOMIES OF SCALE GEORGIA POWER WERE SCAMMED ON!!
Of course, Georgia Power nearly busted the state on their Units 1 & 2 through their incompetence and clueless rube behavior, but NOBODY on the state utility commission would believe Georgia Power was going to be that stupid again! Their country club friends ASSURED THEM GP was not gonna let that happen when they all played their golf at the club ..., and now the rate payers are screwed with huge rate increases while the stockholders will reap the benefit of all the power sold OUTSIDE the state, cuz surplus.
30 yrs ago when I was in the middle of operating a large nuclear reactor, I use to say whatever you think a project will take in time & cost times Pi/2. Today is seems to be just times Pi. 😩
It has always been Pi!
We don't move in a straight line towards the goal. We move in a circular fashion towards it
The big problem with SMR's... yeah it's nothing actually, the problem is with governments, bureaucracy, failures in planning, and lack of infrastructure to actually build them efficiently.
Lack of infrastructure such as?
@haruhisuzumiya6650 Pre-existing factories to build the SMRs, companies that transport and install them, and companies that are experienced and knowledgeable in building the structures required to install SMRs.
Once those are all in place, it should be extremely straightforward, affordable and even fast to build these. SMRs solve almost every problem with nuclear, including dangerous meltdowns
Well, those AI companies are rich enough, so let them bear the costs, including when there is an accident. It is not like the tax payers should be responsible for these costs.
This has never happened. The entire fossil fuel industry built it’s entire business model on not paying the externalities they produce. Remember, the goal of capitalism is to privatize profits and make costs public. Oh, and to avoid taxes.
Yeah, it's their fault for making money. Equity and inclusion! Redistribute wealth! Baaaad business man baaaad!
They'd agree to pick up the costs until there were costs then they'd file for Chapter 11. Then you find out their valuation isn't as high as it once was plus they have loans to repay - more liabilities than assets. And you do this through a lengthy court process while the sky is glowing green.
@@Noconstitutionfordemocrats1 Making money is perfectly fine, but the cost side should then also be picked up by them and not the tax payers. If they need energy for their products, then it makes sense that they pay a fair price for it. That includes insurance premiums covering the risks.
@@darthkek1953 Just let them pay insurance premiums. In that way you calculate the risks preemptively, and very likely nuclear power will price itself out of the market.
Wait, IKEA sofas are not radioactive? Selling it immediately.
I'm sure they have traces of radioactivity. Everything does.
The whole idea with them is ultra mass production makes cheap, the current costs are basically the prototype costs, should have basically nothing to do with the final price point.
I suspect regulatory compliance is the main driver of cost in this industry, I can only imagine the rules framework is diabolical but then failure is unacceptable.
No regulatory compliance. It does not matter if the reactor is mass produced. Lots & lots of testing still needs to be done, such as metallurgy on the reactor to make sure there are no flaws. All manufacturing processes have to follow an extensive regulatory (paperwork) process. if a workers breaks a tap while tapping a hole a special report needs to be filed, detailing the steps of how the problem was address. The change plan must be approved by a compliance committee before it work can be resumed.
Lots & lots of tests need to be performed during the entire assembly process as well as during installation prior to the reactor can be fueled. D
@@guytech7310 Yeah. Every single aircraft built today must be individually tested and approved right?
Wrong.
They are type approved. And we rely on the companies making them to build them to the approval specifications .
Same with SMRs. Mass produced modules. By companies like Rolls Royce who have a long history of hi tech engineering and reactor design. As well as producing one of the most popular gas turbines for power stations, and with a presence in existing reactor control systems and safety designs.
Mass production doesn't pay off until you get into hundreds of units, or more likely thousands. SMRs can't break double digits, and never will.
@@fwiffo Rubbish on both counts
Mass production with TYPE APPROVAL pays off with just two units being produced. The second one has no more need for approval.
The market for SMRS is in the tens of thousands. Britain alone could use about a hundred. More if 'electric everything' is needed.
Sabine, I have been following the development efforts for Small Modular Reactor (SMR) power generators for over 10 years now. My concern relative to developing SMR's are the use of fissile material will require the development of new materials to facilitate SMR 7/24 operations to generate electrical power and how to change the nuclear fuel used when the existing fuel is depleted. Developing new materials to address processing requirements always takes time and money which is why most companies want the government to build initial pilot platforms because the public will pay for the development of new materials, development of new processes and procedures, and development / implementation of risk management plan(s) / supporting procedures.
If a reactor is made in Argentina believe me the corruption is eating 70% of its costs. Im from there
here's the thing: I don't think it matters at all to the companies buying the reactors if these smrs are expensive, because the amount of energy these tech companies need to fuel their datacenters is so ludicrous that the potentially expensive upfront cost of an smr or other type of nuclear reactor is the only feasable way of generating enough energy, and will be worth it in the long run to generate huge profits from ai or whatever it is they will be using the datacenters for.
if the cost of energy is higher than the profit of AI they won't do it. Basic economics.
@@fablearchitect7645 clearly they believe it will be much higher which is why they are investing in it
The nice thing about data centers, especially those doing background tasks like training an AI model, is that one can slow them down easily. Run them at full capacity when solar electricity comes in, run 20% of that at night.
@traumflug ...that is absolutely not what you want to be doing with a datacenter, the entire point of having a datacenter is to have as much availability and uptime as possible. What's the point of building out a huge datacenter if only 20% of it is only ever going to be usable half the time? That's just stupid.
@@traumflug you a absolutely don't want to be doing that with a datacenter, datacenters need very high availability and uptime.
Meanwhile, 700 GW of solar is getting installed this year and with a world wide 13% capacity factor that is like putting 70 big new reactors on line. In one year!
I like nuclear but unless someone gets their act together and builds reactors on time and on budget, nuclear will get out competed. In the mean time, keep the reactors you have!
@@geocam2 because they don't actually do the job
we would have to stay cold on a cloudy afternoon in winter, because there is now less electricity.
Ask the Chinese
Dear Zap. Don't forget to include the financial costs of energy storage, transmission, much more sophisticated and fragile control system requiring demand management and generation management of countless devices, and the environmental destruction of denuding 10 to 1000+ times more land area, often where the wind blows is much more fragile and high value ecosystems. As a consequence, the time and cost of doing the whole renewables system is many times greater than nuclear. Also don't forget to include the loss of benefits when we change to a fragile unreliable and high priced electricity. Industry, jobs and wealth ...all POP! Just look to Germany for our future if we fail to adopt nuclear.
@@davecollins6547 Like I wrote at the end, keep the reactors you have.
Sabine, Generally I greatly appreciate your reviews and insights, but let's be more specific with numbers here... - In Particular on existing reactors. the russian floating power station has being finished in 3 years. The rise of cost is associated with change of the location point from original Arkhangelsk to remote frozen Pivek ( check the map, please). Relocating land infrastructure to Pivek attributes to massive cost rise.
The question is how these costs scale and whether they're associated with materials or with one-off expenses. The oft-overlooked secret of technological change is that mass production is one of humanity's greatest strengths. Costs rarely generalize. The first unit and the initial R&D is always unpredictable, but the manufacturing learning rate associated with automating away whatever bottlenecks exist causes dramatic cost decreases as the number of units produced goes up. Your first megawatt is exorbitant, your first gigawatt a luxury, your first terawatt a major industrial effort; But your tenth terawatt is too cheap to meter.
How come we can produce small reactors for subs and aircraft carriers, why can’t these be scaled up and used.
Because militaries are able to justify the extremely high cost of nuclear power due to the logistical downsides of chemical fuels.
Unfortunately, I become less of a believer in nuclear power every day. It is safe and clean, and there is no doubt about that, but it keeps becoming more expensive while renewables are dirt cheap. The projects constantly go over budget and over time. And I know this is largely the fault of excessive regulation, but it doesn't seem like we'll ever fix this. So we better hope mass storage technology gets very good, very cheap in the next few years, because otherwise we're just going to get stuck with fossil fuels forever.
"Renewables are cheap!" *(After subsidization, before adding in the cost to have them be part of a stable grid)
Renewables are cheaper and more modular because they are fundamentally safer. The idea of putting small modular nuclear reactors in everything like cars was a 1950's pipe dream.
@@a22024 Comment from 2015 I guess, renewables are cheap even without subsidies, and they keep getting cheaper. If nuclear was more cost-effective, we'd see a lot more private investment into it.
Cheap or not,my electric bill keeps going up.
majority of renewable sources like wind and solar suffer from their intermittent generation that is incompatible with the grid infrastructure due to failures of load balancing and storage . this makes them very unreliable , especially when needed the most like if a large power plant goes down they typically disconnect the wind or solar generation because it will create instability in the grid , this is not ideal at all , and only fixed by a massive increase in energy storage which itself is a challenge and typically not sustainable due to the resource minerals required . sustainable renewable energy production , storage , and distribution are indeed a good goal however be sure to consider the holistic cost , for example current solar panel production isnt sustainable due to minerals needed and the inability to recycle the panels that degrades 1% per year from 25% we should therefore not blanket call these source "renewable" .
Thank s Sabina for maintaining a cool head despite all the pro nuclear hot air
Sorry for the misspelled name
Actually being pro nuclear and pro-smr are two completely unrelated things, proof: i am pro nuclear and anti-smr
Translation: “thanks for having a (contrarian) opinion!”
Love it when Sabine asks the internet to look at the facts.
It might not be only small nuclear reactors that're facing this issue.
In Finland, it was decided that the existing Olkiluoto nuclear power plant should get a third reactor unit, the construction started in 2005, and was supposed to go commercial in 2010.
...it went commercial in 2023.
The costs also apparently quadrupled in that time.
While not conclusive evidence or a large sample size, it does seem to speak of a similar ballooning from estimates to reality that you showed for the modular plants.
See Vogtle 3 and 4 in Georgia, USA.
17 Billion cost over run and 9 years late.
Georgia energy customers bills have gone up.
Westinghouse filed bankruptcy.
One concern I have not heard in this discussion is that of terrorism. Small nuclear reactors pose extreme danger from being targeted by terrorists as plentiful and relatively softer targets.
Actually no. The safety requirements to withstand earthquakes and falling airplanes are the same for big reactors and SMRs. So, the SMRs need a big heavy duty enclosure, built in place just like a regular reactor. Since SMRs take up more volume per MW, this cost is typically higher than for standard nuclear.
This cost (and many others like pipes etc) just isn't mentioned in the SMR sales pitch.
At these prices they will not be plentiful.
Spreading SMR's around the world seems like a terrible security risk.
That is a very good point that nobody seems to be addressing. The traditional 1,000+ mW has defense in depth due to its large size and a dedicated security force that keeps it from being an attractive terrorist target. Having multiple much smaller installations will be a security nightmare that has better be taken into account.
Indeed. Lower cost to construct would lead to proliferation to poorer, less politically stable countries. There, attacks at nuclear power plants would be much more likely. Or that materials like spent fuel might go "missing". I'm relieved to learn that cheap SMRs are still a pipe dream.
@@kentuckyken6479 Most likely, a single site will have multiple SMR. So the support infrastructure required would be the same for large reactors.
We, in the UK. As well as America have been making small nuclear reactors for submarines and Navy boats for years. Why is this such an issue?
cause military things dont have to be commercially viable. i guess thats why.
also safety guidlines and other regulations are very different...
@@mugnuz Their design is also secret.
@@cdl0 true thats also not unimportant. even tho it could translate in some cost reduction cause you wouldnt exactly copy it anyway
Because the reactors used in submarines are way, way too expensive to compete economically with other grid sources.
Navy personnel have to sign a 'release' re. radiation exposure. We cannot expect civilians to do that.
'Like IKEA modular sofas but radioactive' - gold medal line that, made me gush my coffee. Thanks!
Some expenses don't scale well, that is why a larger company mostly has a better profit-to-expense ratio.
Any "small" nuclear reactor that produces gamma radiation as result of its operation still has the same problems as a large one, but produces less energy. The only alternative is RTG, but they are very limited by total amount of fuel in the world
Some simple questions: how long is the lifecyle of waste? Who covers the costs? What are the annual insurance costs and who pays for them?
Fuel cycle costs are not the problem with nuclear. If they were magically set to zero nuclear would still be uneconomical.
SNRs in subs have a built in safety. If runaway then just sink the sub. Apparently the oceans have lots of surrounding water. 🤪
Admiral Rickover was contrasting the way utilities run reactors to the way the Navy does. He said first and foremost, he puts engineers in charge. Utilities hire lawyers.
@@spaceranger3728 I knew someone who was chief engineer on a US nuclear sub. He was the one you would want in an emergency. The prop shaft joint broke on his yacht while we were mooring. He just said "Here, you take the helm and try to keep the heading." We were jerry rigged in five minutes.
...And this is why our SMR in Pevek is on a floating barge in the Arctic Ocean. Super hard to get that one boiling.
@@spaceranger3728 Utilities hire sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, college fraternity/sorority friends, prior-vendors of the plants ..., just THINK NEPO and you have the idea.
Hope alone is not sufficient, but can be motivation. We need both, renewable and nuclear power. I appreciate Dr. Sabine´s unbiased open-mindedness, and keep on dusting my solar panels😉 I personally think nuclear power is in better hands if it´s produced in less, but bigger reactors anyway. It´s needed for the base load of the grid primarily, right? Many small plants in many private hands makes the controlling, transporting and compliance of safety confusing.
I think it depends on what you use the energy for. Eg if you think of energy-intensive industry, these often have industrial zones that are the size of a small city easily. It makes sense for them to have their own power generation that doesn't go through a national grid. I believe this independence will be appealing to many companies. I agree that when it comes to actual cities it would make more sense to build bigger reactors which is more efficient at the very least in terms of construction material and site checks.
@@SabineHossenfelder Yes, you´re right. A lot of industries are dependent on their own power production, currently they mostly use gas in my region. Thank you for your attention.
@@SabineHossenfelder On the one hand it’s a terrible waste of resources to build a nuclear reactor just to train an annoying chatbot. On the other hand, there are worse things for big tech could do with their repulsively large profits other than funding SMR startups!
@@stevenb3315 Fair enough!
Hope is good for breakfast not so much for dinner. 😉
Thank you again. Small reactors are working for more than 70 years in submarines and I suppose a little bigger ones in aircraft cariers. About two years ago a navy sailor told that on an aircraft carrier they do not only use it for the propulsion and electricity on board but also to desalinate seawater for thousands of sailors and to produce fuel for the aircraft made from seawater! He thought that the american navy could sell the research behind this for commercial use. But that does not happen. But the knowledge and experience s available. By the way, two weeks ago Google decided that their data centres will be equipped qith smr's in the future. So there is more than hope.
Reactors on sub's etc. have nothing in common with energy producing SMR's - and never ever will.
This is an important and necessary medium term solution for our grid-scale power production and infrastructure. Thank you for this video Sabine!!
I am very skeptical of claims around this, about why costs are tripling and more. I strongly suspect that crushing regulation by governments are just choking off this burgeoning industry. I would be very interested to see detailed financial audits released and analyzed by competent (and non-partisan) auditors. I just can't believe that ACTUAL technical costs are going up that much for real. Something doesn't smell right here, and when that happens you can just follow the money to lead you to the solutions.
In Australia the opposition party (that is the guys with no power) have proposed we build 7 small reactors. Experts have pointed out this will cost billions and only replace a trivial part of Australia's energy needs so make no impact on our carbon foot print. This is while a solar or wind project can be completed in two years at close to budget, with the delays being how to connect all the extra renewable energy to the grid.
My favorite claim of all this is that no new transmission lines will need to be built, but at the site on one of these reactors they have stopped building renewables due to a lack of transmission capacity!
So the thing nuclear reactors do produce is bull****
lolz - why are Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Oracle and the US govt all going to use nuclear power then or expand it? Renewables will cost over a trillion, destroy the environment by tearing down forest and eco systems, have a life of span 15-20 years (compared to 80+ years for nuclear) requires massive expenditure with respect to transmission infrastructure and can't provide base load power. I wish the renewable folks would be honest about the full cost. They talk about power of generation being cheaper but this is not the cost borne by consumers and business who pay for the cost of energy at their premises. They are not the same thing - insert transmission costs. You need to back renewables with something like gas which can support the FULL demand of the grid at any time so you're paying for that to. Nobody in the world is running purely on renewables. It doesn't work.
Solar and wind are useless because you cannot control their input and are forced to try to store their output, which means huge batteries. Further, their expected life is about 15 to 20 years, at which time they'll have to be replaced, again at enormous cost.
@AuJohnM in Australia the most expensive electricity charges are when batteries are feeding into the grid at night.
@@AuJohnM which is different to fossil fuel generation, how?
@@SpookFilthy Yep, they are gaming the system just like traditional generators used to do, just like gas power did in QLD over the last few months. The system is rigged, the answer is to get your own panels and battery.
Slowing the process of developing small, modular nuclear reactors is actually a GOOD THING!
Too many companies, too many engineers, and too many scientists in this world are willing to take shortcuts in order to speed up the process of developing new technologies. Why? Wealth, notoriety, and success. Nuclear has the potential to be safe and effective if we take the necessary precautions and implement it safely. When people take shortcuts to get something to market quickly, we run the risk that a mistake that could cost lives and harm our environment.
Logical Mr Spock .
Those irrational pesky emotional humans keep getting in the way.
🖖
Disagree. Every day globally, a few Chernobyl accident's worth of harm is caused by particle pollution from the burning of fossils and biomass. If a few corners had been cut so that nuclear had grown more but had a few more accidents, then the net health gain would've been truly enormous. Millions of lives saved, and far less environmental damage.
Yes but even the old Chernobyl design is already statistically some 100 times safer than coal power. Nuclear powers real problem is that its vastly over regulated on safety making the costs equally ridiculous as well.
I'd rather just ditch coal entirely asap its a garbage energy source
@@Lucien86 Yet without that "ridiculous" over-regulation, it's not unreasonable to assume that we'd have had 20x more Chernobyl incidents than we've had.
Over-regulation unfortunately, in my opinion, has inadvertently made things somewhat better for the planet. While bureaucrats may like to tell us that what they do is for our safety, my belief is that they do things more for control than for safety.
What we. somehow need to do is to get fame and profiteering out of the development of future nuclear technology, and I have complete confidence that this WILL NOT be an easy thing to do.
To take advantage of iterative engineering, we need to start with really tiny reactors that can be built in months or even weeks.
"Not In My Back Yard" (too small) I'll take 2 please, More than enough space in my front yard!!!
Not SMRs are made the same. What she said is more relevant to US, UK and Japanese SMRs. They are highly problematic because they have little research into their safety in the west. China's SMR, the Linglong One is a demonstration project and costs are not indicative of future SMRs. Their design is based on a modular system which is expected to lower costs considerably.
Hi Sabine. If you haven't already, please watch Professor Dave's latest video. I do agree with the points he makes. I actually stopped watching your videos because of these points. I also understand things are different in the academic arena where you are compared to North America and that your grievances are legitimate. But the concerns Dave points out, still stand. You're a great science communicator. I hope you at least think about the concerns he raises. Anti-science/pseudoscience is on the rise. We need your passion for science to help fight against it!
Then, what did this Dave say? "Anti-science" is not a problem of these small reactors for sure, they're past the science stage for decades. It's a pure engineering and manufacturing problem.
I watched it. Science/academia eats its young, and apparently that's what happened to Sabine. It changes a person, and a little (private) bitterness is probably unavoidable.
@@silkox Unfortunatly for Sabine her professional bitterness how ever justified it might be has manifested as a reactionary bent against the German Greens anti-nuclear policy as some kind of reflex defense of "science", when it is actually Sabine who is failing to do her research on the merits of Nuclear power.
Interest in SMRs might be booming recently, but the reactors are still largely theoretical. The industry is in fact in decline, insurable only via taxpayer subsidies, and remains a radioactive legacy for tens of thousands of years - of which we attempt to assess and evaluate safety and health impacts on just 65 yrs worth. Insane.
Rather than focus on small modular nuclear reactors with their astronomical costs, maybe it would make more sense to put the money into small modular photovoltaic and battery systems. It would not only be less expensive and dangerous, but distributing generation throughout the grid would eliminate the need for a lot of the new transmission lines that will be needed if generation is concentrated in power plants. It will also make the grid much more resilient to damage and blackouts.
Of course the reason this option is not considered is that the small companies that install photovoltaics don't have the political clout that the huge nuclear power plant construction industry does.
Small photovoltaic systems produce small amount of electricity. One thing they inevitably need to produce more is a large collecting area.
Every project manager knows estimates must be multiplied by pi, except in IT projects where you must additionally multiply by e.
I'm not in the nuclear industry in anyway, but a thought.
As long as there is no particular issue with a older reactor, would it be possible to reuse one from a decommissioned submarine? Meaning slice off all the sub unrelated to the reactor, install all the correct plumbing, switch gear, transformers, grid connections and any energy storage devices thought correct and good to go.
Now I would assume they would not be large enough to power huge swathes of of a city, but what about a decent sized complex such as a hospital or university campus?
Oh, no, tech bros pitched something and never delivered. What is going on, that never happened before.
@@kostuek but the ai cocktail waiters will soon be able to build the reactors for us, don’t worry.
Trust me bro i ran the numbers nuclear will get exponentially cheaper the more modular it is. Don't look up how much it costs for submarines/air craft carriers to be powered by these small reactors. I haven't heard nor read article about these companies meeting and debating over how to standardize parts (you know the thing that should've in theory make it cheaper to produce).
It's a mistake to assume the regulatory cost is justified. You can claim it's solely a safety issue but history should tell you government regulations have plenty of holes and inefficiencies that render them less than helpful, or outright harmful. Why are we blindly trusting governments that have been in bed with the fossil fuel industry as long as any of us have been alive? It doesn't make any sense.
America in particular has no excuse not to streamline and fast track massive amounts of nuclear energy. The issue, as always, are the crooks in Washington that would rather send money overseas and fight pointless wars.
So your solution is what ? Blindly trust the companies that build and sell the SMRs instead ? 😅
Mmmmmm, I agree governments can create clunky rules that are out of step with industry reality but I think you will find the Nuclear Energy (NE) regs have been drafted and refined over many decades by cross party collaboration involving Manufacturers, designers, certification agencies, regulators (Govt) and operators. On going refinement will be driven by industry feedback and will at times involve cost considerations e.g if the regulators draft safety directive is cost prohibitive the operators may propose an alternative means that achieves the same outcome. I suspect after many years of maturation the NE regs are about right and the cost of compliance would stand scrutiny. As we used to say in aviation if you want to make a small fortune, start with a big one and buy an airline, I suspect you could apply this to nuclear energy too :-)
The regulatory cost is obviously not justified. Nuclear power is the safest power source man has invented. Yet is saddled with the most onerous regulations. If your goal is safety for a fixed cost of regulating, then a lot more lives could be saved shifting a good chunk of the regulations from nuclear to other forms of power.
We're just afraid to do it because of irrational fear of another Chernobyl or Fukushima. Nuclear generates an incredibly large amount of power in a small space. Which means when things go wrong, it goes very wrong. So it gets saddled with way more regulations than is economically necessary because of fear. Our emotions tell us the worst case is bigger, so we play it extra safe to an unnecessary degree. Same reason airliners are so heavily regulated, even though they're already the safest form of transport.
@@cocolasticot9027 Strawman false dichotomy. Since the NRC was formed, it hasn't approved a single major new project. Not one! A former NRC chair even said nuclear power 'isn't a climate solution'. People like that are 'regulating' nuclear and you really think it's being done fairly/efficiently?
Completly wrong. Your nuclear people are utter fools who belive a fantasy, usually one ideologically motivated to 'punch the hippies' and 'blame the gobermint' rather then just admit that Renewables investment was the right thing to do and that your own resistence to it has cost us decades.
I can't speak for other countries, but in the USA, nuclear power was crippled by the regulatory agency, the NRC - and that was before 3-mile Island and the public's opposition. The NRC is the only agency I know that could issue a permit, then require updates in the middle of design and construction, to comply with new regulations. As an engineer, I was horrified by this concept. Making a change to a half-designed project risks serious errors. And, of course, it increases the time and cost to bring the reactor online.
Sounds like you want to continue building a proven faulty system. Not exactly a strategy for success.
@@traumflug Proven faulty???? Whatever gave you that idea? Regulations change all the time. They generally improve projects (not always, though), but that doesn't mean the earlier regulations were unsafe. Making significant changes in the middle of a large project is definitely unsafe, though.
@@nigelrg1 You appear to have a funny understanding on what regulations are. The only reason why regulations exist is to make reactors safe. That's why there are stringent regulations for nuclear (generally huge risk), but only few for solar (generally safe). The only reason why regulations change is that earlier regulation were found to be unsafe.
@@traumflug So I should get out of my house because it doesn't meet current codes? Regulations change for numerous reasons. Probably 80% of the power plants of any type don't comply with current regulations for NEW plants.
@@nigelrg1 Your house isn't a security threat. For security related issues, older houses do have an obligation to receive an upgrade. It just happens rarely, because houses of all ages are generally safe. - - - One recent example: in the EU, houses now have to have fire detectors. Every flat, every house, every home, no matter of age, got one installed.
The biggest problem with SMR is that until they are into full production the price will always be high. The initial units are all hand built and being modified as they go into that initial design. The first units, will ALWAYS be more expensive and take longer to bring online.
Small reactors are a great idea. They will allow smaller community access to direct power sources and can increase redundancy within the grid. The premise is strong as we have seen smaller reactors used for over 75 years in Submarines and other ships.
The issue, as I mentioned is cost. We need a hard look at nuclear power research to find better ways to make these reactors work but everyone sees these costs down the road and gets scared.
To approach the subject of the construction of nuclear reactors, I think it is useful to set a reference.
For me, the gigantic EPR, a monolithic pressurized water reactor that EDF (Electricité de France) has been trying to start up in Flamanville for almost twenty years is the one. Although the technologies used are conventional, this project is now 12 years behind schedule and it is not yet certain that the plant will produce at the end of 2014. The initial budget has been multiplied by... drums: Six.
It is therefore not surprising to see some pioneers of the new ways encounter serious problems, particularly financial ones. Over time darwinism will apply. Darwinism is based on tangible results, so I would have liked to hear you on the technologies chosen by companies trying to develop these new approaches.
In particular, I found the Kairos way interesting, but I am only a layman.
In any case, thank you again for your notes, they are a point of reference!
Can't start to think about small nuclear reactors that exist today in submarines and airplane carriers. The technology allredy seems to exists, maybe it's only available to US army due to patents/keeping things secret? Conspiracy time! :D
If a reactor on a sub or carrier goes ballistic you just dump the ship in the ocean. There is no such possibility for a landlocked plant. Also operating costs are not a big concern for a military craft. So Safety, cooling and cost of those military reactors is not where it needs to be for civil use.
part of the problem is that they're purpose built (not modular), and they have an unlimited amount of cooling capacity (it's literally IN the water) in an emergency, unlike on land.
The technology might exist in theory, but much of it is classified plus-ultra. The reactors that power the planet's nuclear navies also happen to have a whole lot fewer safety features than would be acceptable in a civilian application, and they use significantly higher-enriched uranium than their civilian counterparts. The world's nuclear navies can get away with all that because they perform a military mission that is OK with a whole lot more risk than civilian operators would be comfortable with, because they can tightly control the fuel that, in civilian hands, would raise major terrorism and nuclear proliferation concerns, and because a reactor meltdown on one of their vessels will, in the worst case, sink the thing many kilometers down do the bottom of the ocean somewhere in the middle of nowhere, instead of creating a massive problem on land, most likely close to a big city.
So it's apples and oranges. SMRs cannot be based on military naval reactors. They have to be designed differently, from scratch.
Also, this is military equipment. The cost effectiveness is no consideration there.
@@משה-ב1ט Russia runs civilian icebreakers on nuclear power for almost 70 years. In more friendly times you could take cruise on such one
These tech investors are going to be shocked when they discover you can’t build a prototype nuclear reactor in a garage like you can a PC, airplane or automobile. The workers will be in for a culture shock when are required to have background checks, drug/alcohol tests, psychological evaluations and even credit checks. It’s not like hanging out with your laptop and a cup of coffee and start coding. I wish them luck but I think they’ll run out of patience even before they run out of cash.
Much of the cost is not the reactor but the containment building that surrounds it. Oh, and forget about just building copies of the large nuclear plants we have now. There aren’t enough skilled people to build more than perhaps two at a time.
The usual tech solution is to move research and manufacture into countries with loose regulations.
I worked in Aviation Engineering for 40 years one of the most regulated industries on the planet. The regulations add incredible cost but compliance is necessary to avoid a smoking hole in the ground. I know very little about the nuclear energy industry but I can see it must have similar if not greater costs of compliance. Prototyping new tech makes for interesting You Tube content but In any highly regulated industry getting it certified, manufactured at scale and operating in a compliant manner is where economic reality kicks in. As a certain CEO said once, Prototyping is fun, production is hard but making money is almost imposssible.
@@number1genoa The Aviation industry didn't have to deal with the tyranny of the Big Blimp trying to keep it noncompetitive.
Thorium reactors dont melt down.
As a general statement about any thorium-fueled reactor, I don't believe this. As a statement about a specific reactor design, I believe this; but there are specific uranium-fueled designs that are "meltdown-proof" as well. Can you provide a reference?
@@pdxjjb the general design for thorium reactors uses a plug to drain the salt when it overheats. The plug melts, the salt drains and the reaction stops.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-salt_reactor
That's a feature of all molten salt reaction, even those with Uranium.
I think all small modular reactors have to be that kind for safty reasons.
If we are sensible, that is!
Thorium is certainly a long term option.
@@larsnystrom6698 all thorium reactors are molten salt. Some SMR designs uses uranium rods. I'm not an expert but I do prefer molten salt designs. Specialy that one from Kopenhagen Atomics
Not existing indeed helps them not melt down.
Thanks for a crisp and Informative video on SMRs status which has generated a lively debate. Economic large scale implementation of safe and reliable well proven NPPs appears to be the key.
As a retired Indian nuclear industry person with three decades plus experience following are some relevant views:
As the most populous developing nation, role of nuclear power in decarbonization of Indian electrical grid and meeting net zero by 2070 would be a major concern not only to policy makers within India but to wider world due to large impact.
To be able to make the transition with maximum reliance on cheaper renewables, for a stable grid about 20% nuclear base load power would be required to replace fossil based generation. With current 7.5 GWe installed capacity being only 3% , multiple fold increase in nuclear power would be necessary, about 100GWe may be envisaged accounting for demand increase also.
Too much focus on SMRs as mentioned in your video would not be a good idea and may distract from this bigger goal. The average unit size for India is already low at 346 MWe versus 966 MWe for top 10 ranking countries.
A pragmatic approach would be to focus on (i) pursuing its own well designed 700MW PHWRs along with large well proven PWRs (~1400MWe) in fleet mode (ii) SMRs viz updated version of its own 220 MWe PHWR plus some other innovative designs may play limited specific roles. The approach vide (i) would be a focused growth strategy which also aligns with how major nuclear countries have grown their programme.
Barring TMI incident which had practically minimal radiation related impact in public domain the PWRs and PHWRs have operated with overall good operational performance and safety records.
A strong safety culture with sharing of experiences and good practices by utilities and respective supporting roles played by organizations such as IAEA,WANO, COG, INPO, EPRI etc. and national regulatory bodies would appear to suggest that this aspect is a very important one for long term safe outcomes rather than GenIV features as at a given time several generations of reactors will co-exist. Of course where required and feasible, safety upgrades through refurbishment and backfitting would happen for earlier models.
Experience with life extension granted to USA NPPs going up to total 80 years life by technical assessment methodology, recommended refurbishment and review process by regulatory body USNRC has avoided significant new build enabling cheaper nuclear power and exemplifies pragmatic & positive role of such body.
Long life with well proven designs can ensure economic outcomes even with long gestation period up to say even ten years provided long term policy and other support mechanisms are in place. This is because once created these remain valuable assets for long time spans.
Potential for recycling of some shuttered plants e.g. German Konvoi units with say new reactor pressure vessel and fresh civil construction at a new location and reusing major components such as steam generators, main coolant pumps and turbine generator etc appears to be feasible and may yield significant economic & sustainability benefits therefore deserves to be explored further.
Relevant articles which discuss these issues in detail may be sourced at www.linkedin.com/in/sabir-vhora-4b6a112a/.
Development of electricity storage is occurring at a much more rapid rate and I suspect will likely render SMRs pointless by the time they actually work. Furthermore more localised renewable generation and storage gets around some of the distribution problem too. The investment in distribution networks will likely be nowhere near what some folk are asserting.
By "small scale nuclear reactors" im reminded of a portable nuclear powered generator set developed for the US government back in the 1950s. It was decided to shelve the project after a quality working model was made because of fear that if released to the general population, "they would try to cut it up to sell as scrap metal" or something along those lines. The Soviets also made such a generator set used to power remote locations. In our press they are cursed for being potentially dangerous. In reality I wounder if the threat to utility profits was the real motive.
Smoke detectors also used to have radioactive batteries
@@АклызМелкенды The sensor not the battery
Hope you watch the Professor Dave Explains video Dr. Hossenfelder. Like your content, but worried about you.
Came here after watching his video to say the same thing, he is bashing her without proper counterargument.
@@PatrickHSB So funny, you guys both need a half educated dude to tell you what you have to think😂? His video is a boring meaningless blabla, assuming, Sabine´s audience is too dumb to differ her valid criticism from stupid science denial.
@@Thomas-gk42excellent response! Dave Farina is a raging narcissist, calling himself "professor" when he only has a bachelor's in chemistry.
Technology is not the problem,politics are the problem
May I add some small comment to Sabine's words? Storages upgrades and Grids expanion are not too slow. The problem with renewables is that they are IMPOSSIBLE .
I did my graduate research in the economics of SMRs as the primary physics researcher on a project funded by the Obama admin. The experience was one of the best but also most draining experiences of my life. There is a lot of tech there, a lot of capacity, and the flexibility is extremely appealing. BUT, it was heartbreaking to see how hard it was to break ground on any new projects in the US and the EU.
We have off the shelf tech that COULD solve many of our growing energy needs as well as hitting our environmental goals if only politics would get out of the way. I am not talking 'de-regulation', I mean that the public opinion needs to be largely ignored here. Once the benefits are realized, the public will have a hard time rolling things back.
Seems to me that the basic engineering has already been done on SMRs since a version powers US aircraft carriers and subs. Did you look at the economic feasibility of modifying those existing reactors to fit the bill?
It is not more expensive than Renewables if you factor in ALL the costs for them as well. See Kyle Hills video on the topic for that (yes i know he is an infotainer, but he IS a serious scientist as well).
The cost of non-renewables is astronomical if you factor in the damage they do to the environment (although i am still not convinced, even by you, that there is need for panic)
The only real problem i see with nuclear is the lack of uranium to scale it up a lot.
Suggest you share your calculations with the IEA and IRENA. Its certainly not currently the case that nuclear can compete with renewables - no matter how you calculate the cost. There is in fact currently not a single nuclear reactor on the face of earth that does not run on government subsidies.
Nonsense, EVERY estimate of Nuclear power puts it at many multiples to cost of renewables. Kyle Hill's content is garbage and he is not remotely serious.
Yeah, that’s just like, your opinion, man!
Do not confound his comedic silly inserts and occasionally more pop culture inspired videos with him not being a serious and respectable scientist.
The usual way to reach your nonsense conclusion is to assume batteries are used for seasonal energy storage. Garbage engineering leads to garbage cost estimates.
The only nuclear reactor we need is 93 million miles away.
Argentina only 700% overbudget??
Otra coronación de gloria.
The issue here, in my mind is there has been misdirection. Government and big business are trying to get SMR's to do what major facilities are doing. Where SMR's should be considered are remote locations. Here in Canada, we have several towns and cities in the far North. These communities operate 7/24/365 on diesel fuel. Can you imagine the pollution created in communities? Also, consider the cost of shipping that much fuel to these remote areas.
SMR’s would eliminate the pollution and reduce costs to these communities and bring a new vitality to the North.
I really want SMRs to succeed (as I think you do, also), but I appreciate your honest data-gathering and analysis.
You're the only science communicator that knows how to pronounce nuclear properly ♥
One of the selling points when SMR's were being advanced about 20-30 years ago was the modularity of operations. When a large-scale unit needs refueling/ maintenance, you lose all ~1000 MWe of generation for as long as the unit is shutdown. With an SMR, the idea was, you shutdown one reactor module at a time and keep running the other 9-11 reactors. Thus keeping 90% or more generation on-line all the time. This would improve overall capacity factor and overall economics.
But times have changed. Those large scale plants that used to have capacity factors in the 50%-60% range have either improved or been shutdown. Capacity factors in the range of 90% or more for an entire refuel-operations cycle are not uncommon. So the idea that SMRs would have a higher overall capacity factor over large-scale plants has faded away. One less selling point for SMR's.
Licensing costs often kill projects. There was once a standard nuclear design, but that died with the rest of the industry after TMI.
We now have about 70 years of good data on nuclear generation and a pretty good idea of what works, and what does not work. Over the last 40 years it has been arguably the cleanest, safest, most reliable baseload generation per MW of power. Maybe now is the time to streamline the regulatory process with the goal of rapid development and shorter timeline between breaking ground and getting the lights turned on. As was recently quoted from another US tech industry: "We can build the rocket faster than we can get FAA approval to launch". This is how innovation grinds to a halt.
The size of the evacuation area effected by implementation of small modular nuclear reactors determines whether they can be practical regardless of their other economics. An SMR is intended to make steam for about three years after which it is then low on fuel and swapped out in about 24 hours for another fully fueled SMR. All the refueling and significant maintenance is done back at the factory and not at the point-of-use. A 300 MW SMR steam generator is to be semi truck deliverable.
SMRs are marketed as steam generators. The expectation is they will be used to run a steam turbine generator where there is about 1/3 efficiency transfer for 100 MW of electricity generation.
To put the use of SMR in perspective a typical 90 MW natural gas turbine electric generator without steam cycle fits in the footprint of a semi trailer and requires no evacuation area. That is the complete electric generating station not including switch gear and transformers. It's up to full power in 15 minutes and is making significant power in a few minutes. At high availability service idle a jet turbine electric generator can be at full power in a few seconds. These are what are used to make a wind turbine electric generator farm behave as a scheduled power station.
An SMR running a steam cycle turbine generator are not able to make very large immediate changes in output. SMRs are far more costly per MWh than traditional nuclear power stations.
SMRs would seem idea for large marine propulsion. The worst case scenario would likely be having to evacuate the ship and scuttle it in deep ocean waters. A SMR powered ship would be similar to insure as other ship losses. The ship might first try to eject the SMR into deep ocean water. A steam cycle is more difficult to operate than a large marine Diesel engine. High pressure steam piping is extremely dangerous if a leak takes place.
SMRs requiring evaluation areas might be used in remote villages where the need for low cost reliable electricity can only be provided by such a system. Most people would accept the small risk of evacuation for low cost reliable long term electricity in Arctic weather regions. There would be a high secondary use for steam heating purposes.
Alan's axiom: The most important technologies are scalable, affordable and profitable. Due to safety, security, fuel and containment requiements, nuclear gets 3 strikes and without economies of scale SMRs are worse. Great video, again, and congratulations on the comments and replies.
But we’re talking about energy, which everyone needs, increasingly, and what are the alternatives? That’s important. To me, nuclear beats coal because cost offsets fueling cycles, and even though safety of design is important, coal kills more people. Until we learn how to really use solar energy, nuclear is the interim solution. If cost is not acceptable, then we have to ask ourselves: how much energy do we need? (we should already be asking that)
@@kensurrency2564 Renewables are the alternative. Coal is already out of the picture. US utilities have not started operation of a new coal power plant since 2013.
@@pauldietz1325 Can renewables provide a reliable base load?
@@kensurrency2564 Yes, through use of complementary solar and wind, some overprovisioning, and various kinds of storage. Make sure that more than batteries are used; batteries are much inferior for seasonal storage compared to less efficient but lower capex alternatives like e-fuels.
Batteries are also much, MUCH cheaper than when that book was published. Electrolysers too, for making hydrogen (which can be stored underground very cheaply for seasonal storage.)
@@pauldietz1325 I think Flywheels are better batteries anyways.