What a phenomenal write up. Taking this level of technical material and conveying it to a broad audience is difficult but this piece made it look easy.
Hi Chris, It's good to be able to wave "HI" after listening to you for nearly 4 years. I think the best part of the many micro start ups is the experience, practical engineering, and the filtering of many people to let those rise to the top with the best skills. I understand your criticism of the economics, yet I am amazed that you do not interview "LAST ENERGY" or "DEEPFISSION" both of whom have very unique designs that help mitigate the cost dramatically. Since Deepfission is a part of the DOE demonstration in July - the simplicity of a borehole with a simple machine and some plumbing ought to show by July if the engineering has a chance.
Chris, here is a different way to look at things. Sixty-four commercial power reactors had construction starts between April 1965 and the end of 1970. All of these were completed and produced power. Ten were closed after on average 44 years of operation, six more were closed after on average 22 years, and of course TMI melted down. There are plans to restart three of the shutdown reactors, which would join the 48 that are still operating. Construction times averaged 7 years, which was inflated noticeably by opposition to Diablo Canyon and a few other reactors. In general this is a remarkably positive story, with reactors successfully designed and constructed within 40 years of the discovery that fission was a possibility in Dec 1938. However, none of the 28 reactors ordered by US utilities in 1974 ever operated. They were all cancelled; a new reactor was not completed till 2023. A similar story is true in Canada and elsewhere.
This is not a story of the normal evolution of a technology. If the regulatory and social environments of 1974 had been present in 1965, then no reactors would ever have been built, anywhere.
The story is complex, but the bottom line is earnest people throughout society, notably regulators, responded to the information and directions they were given to make building of reactors next to impossible. The big power reactors were eventually redesigned and two AP1000's built, at enormous cost, since there was a tremendous need for them and there was an enormous investment in technology, people, and supply chains. The momentum in technology, supply chains, and people does not exist for microreactors. As a related example that you discussed, the BWRX-300's were designed for a diameter of hole that could be dug by an existing Tunnel Boring Machine. Regulatory pushback led to requiring a much larger diameter hole with a much bigger price tag.
I am sure microreactors could be beneficial for society, but will not be built in the current climate.
In the intreview there was way too much talk about revenue, profits, "bringing the right people together", having an ambitious vision, how nice the website is, and other of the usual start-up buzzwords, and very little, practically none in fact, discussion of physics and material science, which is what will actually make such ideas a reality.
And that is all that one needs to know about where this is headed.
Meanwhile OKBM Afrikantov has a fairly barebones website and does zero marketing (mostly nobody has even heard of it), but produces actual reactors. Which, by the way, they could scale up to a lot more than 2-3 a year, there just isn't the demand for that. But certainly not hundreds and thousands either, probably 20-30 with some effort.
The idea is to site many reactors in one place to take the place of a GW scale reactor. Same philosophy Tesla invented for battery packs. Making 100kwh battery packs out of factory mass produced 10wh battery cells. And a Tesla is far more complex than any SMR. And far more control points/loops per tonne of metal. And far more generation in MW per tonne of metal. And vastly more data processing rate per tonne of metal. And vastly higher deaths per tonne of metal.
The best example of that is Copenhagen Atomics, they are planning on mass producing thorium MSRs, using 5% enriched uranium startup fuel (they would like to use SNF derived MOX startup fuel but the regulators won't let them). 40MWe capable heat output per module, in a shipping container sized unit, and they plan on building one/day in a factory. They can get lots of investors, lots of interest, the reactor and factory design is not a problem. The big obstacle is these corrupt regulators. All in countries that proclaim they are in an all out war against climate change & CO2 emissions. Hypocrites, Grifters & Liars. Read what happens when their investors talk with the Regulators:
Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor, Copenhagen Atomics Onion Core - Thomas Jam Pederson @ TEAC12:
"This video explains how advanced small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) technology can be used to completely replace all of the energy we now derive from fossil fuels, for less investment than what’s already been spent on renewable energy in the last two decades alone."
>Should be no problem massively ramping up nuclear, if the PTB weren't staunchly anti-nuclear (i.e. Malthusian):
Uranium is a fossil fuel too. And in no way infinite
>completely replace all of the energy we now derive from fossil fuels
Yeah, good that we don't live within a system that cannot exist without perpetual growth, thus all we have to do is replace the current generation capacity
The land based accessible uranium & thorium resource is enough to supply the entire World's primary energy supply for a 100Myrs. Fusion (deuterium, lithium & boron) until the Sun consumes the Earth.
Perpetual growth is quite possible and in fact desirable if we move out into the solar system and then outward into our galaxy, a trillion Worlds to bioform.
Russia claims its dual KLT-40 reactor based FNPP (Floating Nuclear Power plant), supplying 300MWth, 100MWe costs of $260M. That's $2.6B/GWe, with a substantial additional thermal output for desalination, district heating and/or industrial process heat.
They should be able to sell power to Developing nations for 3-5 cents/kwh. They won't be able to beat that cost, even with hydro.
"...They are pressurized water reactors (PWR) fueled by either 30–40% or 90% [note 1] enriched uranium-235 fuel to produce 135 to 171 MW of thermal power. [2] The KLT-40S variant is used in the Russian floating nuclear power station Akademik Lomonosov.
"...Rosenergoatom said the pilot FNPP was costing Rosenergoatom RUR 21.5 billion, and it expects the second one to be about RUR 18 billion x US$0.012 per RUR.
The low mortality rates for nuclear power presuppose current general design criteria that assure very low radiation exposure during normal operation and accidents. We want to keep those margins on kill rates so we don't lower ourselves to the levels of fossil fuels and "renewables" with mandatory marriage with burning fossil fuels.
What a phenomenal write up. Taking this level of technical material and conveying it to a broad audience is difficult but this piece made it look easy.
Hi Chris, It's good to be able to wave "HI" after listening to you for nearly 4 years. I think the best part of the many micro start ups is the experience, practical engineering, and the filtering of many people to let those rise to the top with the best skills. I understand your criticism of the economics, yet I am amazed that you do not interview "LAST ENERGY" or "DEEPFISSION" both of whom have very unique designs that help mitigate the cost dramatically. Since Deepfission is a part of the DOE demonstration in July - the simplicity of a borehole with a simple machine and some plumbing ought to show by July if the engineering has a chance.
Chris, here is a different way to look at things. Sixty-four commercial power reactors had construction starts between April 1965 and the end of 1970. All of these were completed and produced power. Ten were closed after on average 44 years of operation, six more were closed after on average 22 years, and of course TMI melted down. There are plans to restart three of the shutdown reactors, which would join the 48 that are still operating. Construction times averaged 7 years, which was inflated noticeably by opposition to Diablo Canyon and a few other reactors. In general this is a remarkably positive story, with reactors successfully designed and constructed within 40 years of the discovery that fission was a possibility in Dec 1938. However, none of the 28 reactors ordered by US utilities in 1974 ever operated. They were all cancelled; a new reactor was not completed till 2023. A similar story is true in Canada and elsewhere.
This is not a story of the normal evolution of a technology. If the regulatory and social environments of 1974 had been present in 1965, then no reactors would ever have been built, anywhere.
The story is complex, but the bottom line is earnest people throughout society, notably regulators, responded to the information and directions they were given to make building of reactors next to impossible. The big power reactors were eventually redesigned and two AP1000's built, at enormous cost, since there was a tremendous need for them and there was an enormous investment in technology, people, and supply chains. The momentum in technology, supply chains, and people does not exist for microreactors. As a related example that you discussed, the BWRX-300's were designed for a diameter of hole that could be dug by an existing Tunnel Boring Machine. Regulatory pushback led to requiring a much larger diameter hole with a much bigger price tag.
I am sure microreactors could be beneficial for society, but will not be built in the current climate.
In the intreview there was way too much talk about revenue, profits, "bringing the right people together", having an ambitious vision, how nice the website is, and other of the usual start-up buzzwords, and very little, practically none in fact, discussion of physics and material science, which is what will actually make such ideas a reality.
And that is all that one needs to know about where this is headed.
Meanwhile OKBM Afrikantov has a fairly barebones website and does zero marketing (mostly nobody has even heard of it), but produces actual reactors. Which, by the way, they could scale up to a lot more than 2-3 a year, there just isn't the demand for that. But certainly not hundreds and thousands either, probably 20-30 with some effort.
The idea is to site many reactors in one place to take the place of a GW scale reactor. Same philosophy Tesla invented for battery packs. Making 100kwh battery packs out of factory mass produced 10wh battery cells. And a Tesla is far more complex than any SMR. And far more control points/loops per tonne of metal. And far more generation in MW per tonne of metal. And vastly more data processing rate per tonne of metal. And vastly higher deaths per tonne of metal.
The best example of that is Copenhagen Atomics, they are planning on mass producing thorium MSRs, using 5% enriched uranium startup fuel (they would like to use SNF derived MOX startup fuel but the regulators won't let them). 40MWe capable heat output per module, in a shipping container sized unit, and they plan on building one/day in a factory. They can get lots of investors, lots of interest, the reactor and factory design is not a problem. The big obstacle is these corrupt regulators. All in countries that proclaim they are in an all out war against climate change & CO2 emissions. Hypocrites, Grifters & Liars. Read what happens when their investors talk with the Regulators:
Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor, Copenhagen Atomics Onion Core - Thomas Jam Pederson @ TEAC12:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqxvBAJn_vc
Should be no problem massively ramping up nuclear, if the PTB weren't staunchly anti-nuclear (i.e. Malthusian):
Energy Transition: Nuclear SMRs vs Renewables, Energy Transition Crisis:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=yBF2fGUO5cQ
"This video explains how advanced small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) technology can be used to completely replace all of the energy we now derive from fossil fuels, for less investment than what’s already been spent on renewable energy in the last two decades alone."
>Should be no problem massively ramping up nuclear, if the PTB weren't staunchly anti-nuclear (i.e. Malthusian):
Uranium is a fossil fuel too. And in no way infinite
>completely replace all of the energy we now derive from fossil fuels
Yeah, good that we don't live within a system that cannot exist without perpetual growth, thus all we have to do is replace the current generation capacity
The land based accessible uranium & thorium resource is enough to supply the entire World's primary energy supply for a 100Myrs. Fusion (deuterium, lithium & boron) until the Sun consumes the Earth.
Perpetual growth is quite possible and in fact desirable if we move out into the solar system and then outward into our galaxy, a trillion Worlds to bioform.
Russia claims its dual KLT-40 reactor based FNPP (Floating Nuclear Power plant), supplying 300MWth, 100MWe costs of $260M. That's $2.6B/GWe, with a substantial additional thermal output for desalination, district heating and/or industrial process heat.
They should be able to sell power to Developing nations for 3-5 cents/kwh. They won't be able to beat that cost, even with hydro.
https://world-nuclear.org/Information-Library/Country-Profiles/Countries-O-S/Russia-Nuclear-Power
"...They are pressurized water reactors (PWR) fueled by either 30–40% or 90% [note 1] enriched uranium-235 fuel to produce 135 to 171 MW of thermal power. [2] The KLT-40S variant is used in the Russian floating nuclear power station Akademik Lomonosov.
KLT-40 reactor - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLT-40_reactor..."
"...Rosenergoatom said the pilot FNPP was costing Rosenergoatom RUR 21.5 billion, and it expects the second one to be about RUR 18 billion x US$0.012 per RUR.
Radical solution -- end the war and buy reactors from the Russians.
Micro reactor bubble? Nah. Just grifters reflecting the times in the US where grifters are king.
Likely they are targeting siting in Developing Nations where regulators will be rational.
If rational is cradle to grave equal deaths per kWh compared to diesel power, sure, OK. Enjoy that🙂
Not even close. Rational will be full lifecycle <1% in deaths/twh compared to diesel generation.
That’s on the order of existing nuclear power.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272406182_Why_nuclear_energy_is_sustainable_and_has_to_be_part_of_the_energy_mix
Indeed, but <9X higher in deaths/twh. Still very acceptable. And that doesn't count any of their purported deaths due to "global boiling".
The low mortality rates for nuclear power presuppose current general design criteria that assure very low radiation exposure during normal operation and accidents. We want to keep those margins on kill rates so we don't lower ourselves to the levels of fossil fuels and "renewables" with mandatory marriage with burning fossil fuels.