A realistic understanding of their costs and risks is critical.
What are SMRs?
-
SMRs are not more economical than large reactors.
-
SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors.
-
SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste.
-
SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production.
-
SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.
[Edit: If people have links that contradict any the above, could you please share in the comment section?]
Removed by mod
There’s so many people paranoid about the remote possibility of dirty bombs. Meanwhile, Norfolk Southern is actually spilling tankers full of toxic chemicals that get set on fire by being incredibly negligent.
If terrorists did want to poison an area, there’s plenty of insanely toxic and commercially available compounds to choose from. The fixation on nuclear fuel is an indicator of someone who is just repeating a ghost story and doesn’t actually know/care what the biggest sources of danger are.
Though to be fair, using dirty bombs or radioactive material has waaaaay larger “fear” factor than a random chemical that kills just as well.
There are plenty of good arguments against SMRs: none of them include terrorism.
The theory was always that you could get economies of scale if you were building the same reactor every time in a factory and transporting it to install somewhere else. In practice those economies never materialized (did they even exist?)
Meanwhile solar, wind, and batteries have plummeted in cost. There is no need for base load power generation if we have sufficient battery storage and an oversupply of generators - which is entirely feasible for wind and solar.
Removed by mod
At temperate latitudes, you can actually get something like 95% of the way there using wind, solar, and reasonable amounts of storage in addition to existing hydropower.
This leaves a fairly small chunk which needs either long-duration storage or firm generation. Nuclear might be able to fill part of that, but only if it comes in at a lower price than currently seems likely. Other technologies, such as induced geothermal and sodium-ion flow batteries are a lot more likely-looking right now.
Removed by mod
No need for power generation dedicated to the base load.
Nuclear power generation is base load only: it does not full the role of a peaker.
Battery + renewable technology is already the primary source of power on many grids and the trend continues accelerating in that direction.
Removed by mod
Grids*
Ducking autocorrect
Removed by mod
What kind of a moron are you? When you make claims you bring the proof.
Or you know, I could assert that you’re, say, a donkey-fucker. If you got proof to the contrary, please provide it.
I am not making claims. I shared an article on a matter that bugs me. I wanted to see what people think and potentially inform myself further.
And your input was definitely invaluable!
that donkey just didn’t know how dangerous the bears really were.
Nuclear power is simply a smokescreen. It’s proponents ultimately just want fossil fuel dependency to last as long as possible by promising silver bullet solutions that will never become reality, instead of focusing on solutions that exist and are effective today.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Basically, Warl0k3 thinks Diplomjodler’s argumentation is a conspiracy theory. In his comment, he ironically takes the position of a nuclear bro who finds out that his devious plan was discovered.
Removed by mod
Well, thanks.
Otoh, I withheld judgement on your opinion for a reason: I can think of at least one example of a German pro-nuclear pro-coal anti-renewables shill who has rather recently turned into a pro-nuclear anti-climate-change shill.
[Addendum: In fact, in Germany, associations like Nuclearia (pro-nuclear), Eike (anti-renewables), Vernunftkraft (anti-wind power) are all linked, including in their financing through the Heartland Institute.]
I understand that the situation might be a little different in other countries, but the whole worldwide civil nuclear field was born out of the military-industrial complex and is still very connected in governments, much more so than solar/wind energy companies are.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Why not use one of the safest and cleanest ways of producing power?
The wind doesn’t blow all the time, neither does the sun shine all the time, and not everyone is around thermal or wave sources.
Battery tech is coming along, and we are building more gravity batteries, but nuclear can close right in and replace most fossil fuel plants.
New reactors are expensive. New reactors are late. New reactors can basically only be built by nation states but not privately. Nuclear is not insurable. Nuclear produces waste with excessive half-life. Nuclear steals resources and mindshare from other options. Nuclear energy output can’t be moderated well (basically for economic reasons, it runs full steam all the time and for safety reasons, you can only moderate output a little), so it does not effectively augment wind and solar, rather leading to wind/solar having to be turned off.
Wind and solar meanwhile can be built cheaply, quickly, privately, locally, site sizes easily scale between kW or GW of output and they only produce a little regular waste at the end of their life. (Okay, granted, Neodymium mining does produce some nuclear waste too — but definitely nowhere what uranium mining produces.)
Wind+solar+hydro+better national/continental grids+batteries+flexible demand is a much better combination.
You’re right that is a great end game
I was very pro nuclear but in the past few years, solar+batteries have become cheaper than nuclear. We can go 100% solar + batteries for less than building nuclear and save the uranium for important things like spaceflight.
It’s not just the financial cost though. Going solar+batteries requires a significant increase in lithium production which has all kinds of environmental downsides. New battery tech is in the world to use just sodium and such but we’re nowhere near large scale for that yet. Nuclear (alongside other technology and reducing our power usage) could bridge the gap to the new tech.
Either way, good luck getting anyone in charge to agree on anything, let alone that hurts their coal and gas profits.
Lithium production has dramatically less environmental impact than coal mining.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster
Sodium just went large scale grid installed:
https://cnevpost.com/2024/05/13/china-1st-large-sodium-battery-energy-storage-station-operation/
But for grid, even ancient nickel iron batteries are fine. Lithium is only needed for mobile device (car/bike/laptop/phone).
This is why it’s always the conservative parties advocating for it, as they are in bed with the fossil fuel industry.
If Bill Gates likes it, then im out.
Ill stick with renewables like a fine modern citizen.
Removed by mod
See the Australian conservative opposition (Liberal and National parties), for example. They are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, have no actual plan to roll out nuclear, but are using it as a delay tactic. See also how conservative parties are attacking renewables but not directly talking about coal (for the most part) because they know that the general public won’t accept it anymore. Conveniently, attacking renewables and talking up nuclear is an easy way to keep coal around for a little longer.
Your points are more historical, I’m talking more about the last few years or so, the period where most conservatives now won’t admit to being climate change deniers, but incidentally have positions that worsen climate change.
Removed by mod
The economic advantage of SMRs is that when you make reactors in a location, the 1st is always more expensive than any following reactors. Just a reality of construction, permits, designs, etc. So if you have 4 reactors in one place, that’s pretty nice. They also have the advantage of being able to turn one off for maintenance and then having 2, 3, 4 other reactors in the same vicinity that can pick up the slack for the duration.
As for waste, yeah it’s the same problem. But it’s important to note that the volume of material is not that big. The entire volume produced by all us nuke energy ever takes up a football field stacked 10 yards high. All told, that’s a smaller problem than I ever thought.
I’m not a big nuclear advocate, I’m pretty mid on it. This is where I got all of the above information, an interview with the head of the US DOE loan program https://www.volts.wtf/p/nuclear-perhaps?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The nice thing about nuclear waste is that it kind of just sorts itself out too. I half suspect not knowing what to do with it and kicking the can down the road is sort of the whole point. Nominally it’s pretty easy to deal with nuclear waste, you seal it up somewhere and leave it to not be radioactive any more. The problem is it takes a long time, and we don’t really know how to communicate to anyone 1000 years in the future “there’s nuclear waste here, stay the fuck away”. Making sure it’s an active topic for discussion kind of keeps it at the forefront and means it’s not forgotten about.
I also learned in that interview that after a relatively short period, the aggressive decay is over and you’re left with a barrel of waste that isn’t actually shooting off radiation very often.
Except that is hardly unique to nuclear waste. A wide variety of industrial processes produce high grade chemical waste, especially electronics like computers, solar panels, and inverters. This is just as deadly as any nuclear waste, and if stumbled upon will kill just as quickly in a hundred years, a thousand years, million years, or a billion years.
There is however a well established solution to this problem, and that is making sure the government knows what and where it is as well as that someone it monitoring and securing the site. The actual chemical makeup of the stuff that kills you doesn’t actually matter all that much compared to makeing sure it stays where it’s supposed to be.
You uh… want to give a single example of solar panel manufacturing waste that is as deadly as nuclear waste in a thousand years?
Humanity has never built anything that has intentionally lasted 10,000 years, much less 250,000.
It’s the height of arrogance to think your society will last a thousand times longer than any in the history of the world.
Arsenic, mercury, gallium, tellurium, and cadmium are all heavy metal waste products produced in quantity for semiconductor manufacturing, are commonly landfilled, pose extreme risk to human health if they ever managed to leach out of the landfill and into a aquifer, and being heavy metals have no non-nuclear method of decay. Given the primary risk of high grade nuclear is also that it is made up of toxic hevey metals that might be dangerous if lost to the local aquifer, it seems fair to compare the two.
Semiconductor manufacturing also makes heavy use of PFAS materials, which while less directly dangerous to human health still do end up measurably entering and contamating the environment through plant wastewater streams. Once in the environment, these also tend to last for between six hundred to a thousand years before being broken down or sequestered.
I don’t think my society will last a hundreds of thousands of years, but i’m pretty sure a society of people in the area will, and if not, then it isn’t a problem because evidently there is evidently no one around to harm. Structures like landfill barriers are not likely to last that long on their own, and as such it falls on people to renew and maintain them for as long as there are people around anyway. Hence why it is imperative that the local government knows about and monitors the site.
All of this is true regardless of which specific heavy metal or acid is stored at the site, though given the small quantity of nuclear waste makes up of similarly harmful industrial wastes it is going to be easier to manage on that face alone.
Obviously humanity hasn’t made anything that lasted tens of thousands of years, we weren’t building anything significant tens of thousands of years ago. We do however have plenty of local governments and buildings that have lasted thousands of years, and which are probably not going anywhere anytime soon.
Humanity has never built anything that has intentionally lasted 10,000 years
You don’t know what those cave people were thinking when they drew those pictures.
I get your point, but Gobleki Tepe was built ~11,000 years ago, so we have built things meant to last tens of thousands of years.
Thank you for sharing this link. It was very interesting listening to someone from within the US that is head of an office now and started from Shell Solar.
There is a reasoning that I didn’t get. Maybe I misunderstood something or I lack some information/knowledge. Anyways, here it is:
At 1:02 they talks about nuclear waste saying that all the nuclear waste produced in the US by the nuclear power plants is like a football field that is 10 yards tall and then he talks about why this waste is not concerning.
Later at 1:07 He mentions that the US is not reprocesing the uranium fuel rods, in which 95% of the energy is still there, and that the US should do reprocessing like other countries do.
Doesn’t that mean that these unprocessed rods in the US that are in the “football field of nuclear waste” are therefore a concern?
So energy remaining and radioactivity are separate. The isotope that it becomes has a decently long half life, but it might only be a few protons or neutrons away from something really radioactive.
I do believe that the fuel rods count towards that pile of waste. I think the US has laws or rules that make it hard or impossible to recycle these back into the good stuff, but it’s very doable. France does it to a high degree.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I think I kinda understand what you say but I have more reading to do. Currently I’m on some relevant wiki pages trying to get a better understanding [Spent nuclear fuel, Radioactive waste, Long-lived fission product].
In case you (or anyone) have any other links to suggest, please do not hesitate.
Damn this website is so much better than reddit
I know nothing on the topic, but the points you raise don’t seem relevant to me?
SMRs are not more economical than large reactors.
Yeah, economies of scale mean small things are generally less efficient than big things. This is a criticism of local power generation that applies just as well to wind turbines for example. Nothing to do with this idea really.
SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors.
Why would anyone expect large power plants to be less safe than this? I’d expect the technology in both to be safe. Tell me if this is safe or not, not if it’s “safer” than large power plants on some ambiguous scale. Rooftop solar is also less safe than commercial solar power plants just due to being located near someone’s living space, but it’s a useless relative comparison.
SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste.
That one is the only valid point to me.
SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production.
Why not? Seems like they would.
SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.
This is just a repeat of the first point.
Again, I know nothing on this and don’t have an opinion either way. I’m pointing out this seems to be a criticism but only one of the 5 points seems to actually criticize this.
These are not my points, they come from the article. So for example in relation to your question on the
SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power…
they have a couple of paragraphs that give an explanation.
My first issue with this, is that he’s still using his information from 2013. For instance, he claims that the spent fuel is just as dangerous. Yet we have proven time and time again, that the spent fuel rods can be used in other nuclear facilities to generate even more power off of them. We have the technology (theoretically of course, you need to actually build the facilities for this to work…) get even more energy off this “waste”, in turn also making it far less dangerous!
Second issue being he says the reactors would need a secondary power source in case of emergency. Duh? Thats his reason, is that they would need a backup power source to keep the coolant system running… Duh.
Removed by mod
My first issue with this, is that he’s still using his information from 2013.
That’s actually a thing against nuclear power. For decades it’s the best thing. But often drawbacks are only solved in a new design that isn’t in a lot of nuclear power stations. And if they’re actually build then the cost overrun by a factor of 2 and more.
It’s always the next iteration that’ll solve things. It seems to be like a costly way to produce power if it’ll be built. Existing ones can be cheap, but then there are often several technical versions out of date.
Yes, nuclear if always hindered by money. It doesn’t have to be that way, and one way to help nuclear is by correcting the information of old, and embracing the new technology we do have.
All these are kinda no brainers, lol. I think we are still going to need nuclear as a baseload power supply where hydro doesn’t work because it’s too dry or flat. We gotta get off “clean coal” and “natural gas” as baseload power. I like sodium reactors and advanced, non-light water designs. Light water has become a political hot potato even though it is far safer than coal plants in terms of number of people hurt or killed by emissions.
As the coal and gas industry has done, advanced designs will need new names like “natural rock” to distance themselves from negative connotations.
My personal stance is that sustainability cannot be achieved within capitalism due to its model of eternal growth. We can have one or the other, but not both.
So creating more energy could not be the solution. Creating less demand would be, and the demand comes from industries.
More often than not, I it seems to me this discussion about clean energy is a deflection of the real problem which is industrialisation under capitalism. We don’t question anymore what this energy is needed for.
Good news then, Microsoft is building a new multibillion dollar AI facility which will ratchet up power demands alongside the increase in power demands for crypto. Oh wait, I said good news. Uhh…
We have excellent incentive to start a Dyson sphere?
No sun to warm us, No global warming.
But in all seriousness some of the breakthroughs in fusion reactors have me excited long term. It’s nowhere near ready yet, but we’ve hit net energy gain, just can’t sustain it well.
I think the EU Commission has done a fairly good job of listing the pros and contras of small modular reactors:
They have some advantages over conventional (large) reactors in the following areas:
- if they are serially manufactured without design chances, manufacturing is more efficient than big unique projects
- you can choose a site with less cooling water
- you can choose a site where a fossil-burning plant used to be (grid elements for a power plant are present) but a renewable power plant may not be feasible
- some of them can be safer, due to a higher ratio of coolant per fuel, and a lower need for active cooling*
Explanation: even a shut down NPP needs cooling, but bigger ones need non-trivial amounts of energy, for example the 5700 MW plant in Zaporizhya in the middle of a war zone needs about 50 MW of power just to safely stay offline, which is why people have been fairly concerned about it. For comparison, a 300 MW micro-reactor brought to its lowest possible power level might be safe without external energy, or a minimal amount of external energy (which could be supplied by an off-the-shelf diesel generator available to every rescue department).
The overview of the Commission mentions:
SMRs have passive (inherent) safety systems, with a simpler design, a reactor core with lower core power and larger fractions of coolant. These altogether increase significantly the time allowed for operators to react in case of incidents or accidents.
I don’t think they will offer economical advantages over renewable power. Some amont of SMRs might however be called for to have a long-term steerable component in the power grid.
Put as much money into the research of SMRs as you would like to waste. Meanwhile we just build a cheaper, better and more reliable system based on renewables.
This will happen with or without the nukebro hypetrain.
None of these points are relevant. Nobody is selling SMRs as better than large-scale plants (at least I hope they’re not). The point of SMRs is that they are much easier to bring in and put down. A huge portion of the world still runs on fossil fuels, often with frequent brownouts or scheduled blackouts. Being able to bring in a RELIABLE non-fossil fuel power plant at a smaller scale would be huge. Distributed solar has some pretty awesome potential for individual households if you don’t care about on- demand power, but you do eventually need something for your denser cities etc.
I though the use case was that these reactors can be mass produced in a factory and not require large scale infrastructure projects?
I appreciate this hasn’t been proven but comparing apples with oranges seems odd.
I though the use case was that these reactors can be mass produced in a factory and not require large scale infrastructure projects?
The mass production takes time to build up. It takes time to get experience. I’ve read various articles around SMRs. For at least the first 9 there will not be any mass production. It’ll be very costly.
Usually production improves as more is produced. Possibly it improves by the experience gained, possibly by a new factory.
It’ll not be immediately cheap and mass produced. While that is often claimed for SMRs.
As small ones aren’t as efficient, it’ll be more costly per kWh. That it’ll be cheaper than regular nuclear power seems mostly wishful thinking.
