I never understood the hype around SMR especially when the technology is untested on a commercial scale. Excellent podcast and I look forward to hearing the next one.
From the video, paraphrasing you and quoting verbatim, there’s a lot of ‘putting into context’ needed:
In May 2025 OPG moved into a higher level of the construction class estimates; we got some numbers. Initial projections from GE back in 2018/2019 when the project was conceived was US$1 billion. The Tennessee Valley Authority were involved in the BWRX-300 project because they’re looking to deploying them at their Clinch River site. [The number they came up with was] US$6 billion for the FOAK:
The GE $1 billion was an NOAK cost, which is generally assumed to be the 10th reactor. From 2018 to 2025, the USA inflation rate was 31%, so that NOAK cost projection stands at $1.3 billion in 2025. That’s X4.6, not X6.
The TVA figure was Overnight Construction Cost (OCC) as was the GE figure.
“...so that [OCC] excludes things like owners costs, financing costs, contingencies, interest during construction, etc…”
You then introduced the Rickover Memo, implying the BWRX-300 is a ‘Paper Reactor’. That is bizarre from someone as knowledgeable as you of nuclear power reactor varieties. In fact, I do not believe in your heart of hearts you class this small version of the fully licenced ESBWR in the same way as a LFTR or HTGR. You are contorting your views to match your agenda and that’s not good.
“...What OPG has revealed is a total installed cost……….the first unit is estimated to be US$4.5 billion……….so let’s just say $15,000 per installed kW…”. So what might the ’pure’ OCC be - $10,000/kW???
For you to be believable, you should now cast the TVA garbage $6 billion OCC figure to one side. You the might then consider referring to a July 2024 meta analysis of Large Reactors and SMRs published by INL – this is granular – it is the best data we’ll be able to refer to, certainly up to the starting point – the 2030 $/kW column. In relation to OPG’s $15,000/kW for the FOAK, INL refer to the pragmatic BOAK:
“...Because the values consist of an average of data sets that cover first-of-a-kind (FOAK) and Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) estimates, the resulting values are referred to as “between a first and Nth of a kind,” or BOAK. In other words, this is equivalent to a ‘next commercial offering’, a reactor construction that occurs after the first demonstration….”
In this report, there is reference to your video dialogue as to whether or not economies of scale ‘outclass’ economies of ‘mass production’:
“...Since SMRs are smaller, it takes more units/modules to reach the same electrical deployment. Thus, learning can occur faster with SMRs which allows for quicker and larger cost reductions than for the large reactors as shown in the figure. As a result, the combination of a shorter construction time (which reduces financing costs) and more learning per the same level of GWe deployment causes the cost projections to converge for both SMRs and large reactors…
This is displayed in Figure A-1 with data indicating that, by 2050, SMRs will be as cheap as, if not cheaper than, Large Reactors:
If this proves to be so, unarguably, if Large Reactors don’t have it on price, they have nothing! Whereas, it’s easy to trot out half a dozen significant advantages SMRs have over Large Reactors.
Believe me – slaying the ‘SMR Dragon’ you have not done and banging heads against brick walls springs to mind, should you decide to carry on with the attempt.
Chris, you mentioned that IESO did a cost comparison of wind/solar/batteries versus the 4 SMRs. Is this available to the public? I haven’t been able to find it online.
Hello Chris: There is an important issue that you have overlooked. Due to use of heavy water CANDU reactors produce 0.4 g TRU / kg natural uranium as compared to 0.1 g TRU / kg natural uranium for light water cooled reactors. The only technology that can stop the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is fuel breeding fast neutron reactors that need TRU.
I have listened to many of your podcasts but at no time have you referenced the TRU issue. For more information go to www.xylenepower.com Regards, Charles Rhodes
I never understood the hype around SMR especially when the technology is untested on a commercial scale. Excellent podcast and I look forward to hearing the next one.
From the video, paraphrasing you and quoting verbatim, there’s a lot of ‘putting into context’ needed:
In May 2025 OPG moved into a higher level of the construction class estimates; we got some numbers. Initial projections from GE back in 2018/2019 when the project was conceived was US$1 billion. The Tennessee Valley Authority were involved in the BWRX-300 project because they’re looking to deploying them at their Clinch River site. [The number they came up with was] US$6 billion for the FOAK:
The GE $1 billion was an NOAK cost, which is generally assumed to be the 10th reactor. From 2018 to 2025, the USA inflation rate was 31%, so that NOAK cost projection stands at $1.3 billion in 2025. That’s X4.6, not X6.
The TVA figure was Overnight Construction Cost (OCC) as was the GE figure.
“...so that [OCC] excludes things like owners costs, financing costs, contingencies, interest during construction, etc…”
You then introduced the Rickover Memo, implying the BWRX-300 is a ‘Paper Reactor’. That is bizarre from someone as knowledgeable as you of nuclear power reactor varieties. In fact, I do not believe in your heart of hearts you class this small version of the fully licenced ESBWR in the same way as a LFTR or HTGR. You are contorting your views to match your agenda and that’s not good.
“...What OPG has revealed is a total installed cost……….the first unit is estimated to be US$4.5 billion……….so let’s just say $15,000 per installed kW…”. So what might the ’pure’ OCC be - $10,000/kW???
For you to be believable, you should now cast the TVA garbage $6 billion OCC figure to one side. You the might then consider referring to a July 2024 meta analysis of Large Reactors and SMRs published by INL – this is granular – it is the best data we’ll be able to refer to, certainly up to the starting point – the 2030 $/kW column. In relation to OPG’s $15,000/kW for the FOAK, INL refer to the pragmatic BOAK:
“...Because the values consist of an average of data sets that cover first-of-a-kind (FOAK) and Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) estimates, the resulting values are referred to as “between a first and Nth of a kind,” or BOAK. In other words, this is equivalent to a ‘next commercial offering’, a reactor construction that occurs after the first demonstration….”
In this report, there is reference to your video dialogue as to whether or not economies of scale ‘outclass’ economies of ‘mass production’:
“...Since SMRs are smaller, it takes more units/modules to reach the same electrical deployment. Thus, learning can occur faster with SMRs which allows for quicker and larger cost reductions than for the large reactors as shown in the figure. As a result, the combination of a shorter construction time (which reduces financing costs) and more learning per the same level of GWe deployment causes the cost projections to converge for both SMRs and large reactors…
This is displayed in Figure A-1 with data indicating that, by 2050, SMRs will be as cheap as, if not cheaper than, Large Reactors:
https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/Sort_107010.pdf
If this proves to be so, unarguably, if Large Reactors don’t have it on price, they have nothing! Whereas, it’s easy to trot out half a dozen significant advantages SMRs have over Large Reactors.
Believe me – slaying the ‘SMR Dragon’ you have not done and banging heads against brick walls springs to mind, should you decide to carry on with the attempt.
Chris, you mentioned that IESO did a cost comparison of wind/solar/batteries versus the 4 SMRs. Is this available to the public? I haven’t been able to find it online.
Hello Chris: There is an important issue that you have overlooked. Due to use of heavy water CANDU reactors produce 0.4 g TRU / kg natural uranium as compared to 0.1 g TRU / kg natural uranium for light water cooled reactors. The only technology that can stop the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is fuel breeding fast neutron reactors that need TRU.
I have listened to many of your podcasts but at no time have you referenced the TRU issue. For more information go to www.xylenepower.com Regards, Charles Rhodes