Can Small Modular Reactors Save Nuclear Power? 

My only really strong opinion about nuclear is that shutting of nuclear before you get rid of fossils is super stupid.

Great video by the way! Thanks. Shared on twitter amongst nuclear friends!

Nobody talks about a major potential cost/safety saving. When the module is spent it can be trucked or barged back to a specialised reprocessing facility, instead of trying to decommission it on-site.

Thank you for shining some light on the technology. I've been following news about SMRs, MSRs and related technologies for more than a dozen years. Unfortunately, during this time the regulatory and public perception gains have been glacially slow. Nuclear has to be part of our future energy solution. Too bad we are several decades behind the curve.

Hi Rosie, Does dealing with nuclear waste in the same way as traditional nuclear generators mean storing it for thousands of years in someone else’s backyard?

Well said Rosie. We could ensure that the SMR plant also takes care of the radioactive waste rather than externalising their waste issue. Safety of the plant should be treated as a whole system safety issue, including radioactive waste in legislation.

Another excellent tutorial, thanks. How is nuclear waste disposal costed, any current experience of cost of full cycle ie design, build, operate, dispose? Obviously exclude nuclear weapons research and disposal, just the generating cost cycle.

Please always ask how the cost of storing and monitoring of nuclear waste for thousands of years is calculated and included in the costs? Is there a real solution or will the problem be “solved in the future”? For example in Canada Ontario the waste is still “temporarily” stored on site on the shores of Lake Ontario. With lots of smaller nuclear plants what happens to the waste? Is it harder to track and keep safe? If shipped to a central location we now have lots of nuclear waste being transported in lots of different vehicles or trips. This increases the likelihood of a mishap.

For decades we have used nuclear generators for space craft. These generators can be powered by nuclear waste. We could use these generators on earth not only to replace fossil fuel power production but also eliminate nuclear waste. That sounds like a win win to me.

How does the 1/3 scale prototype operation numbers compare with the full sized SMR?

So the answer to the videos title: NO. Their cost target is $58 pMWh, which is 50% more than the stated wind/solar costs (which might be lowballing a bit). That $58 includes un-disclosed subsidies. Pile on the historic baggage of nuclear and there is no chance in hell this is being used at scale for grid energy. I fully support the company though and hope they find a niche

SMRs might provide steady baseline power for heavy industry. Making steel, concrete, glass and many other such commodities require round-the-clock intense industrial processes. For these applications, efficiency improves as variability is avoided. Energy input loads for continuous operation of this type are often extreme, but start-up is much worse and deviation from run-mode increased waste, degrade product quality, and lower profitability. Boston Metal’s electrolysis methods for steel manufacturing, for example, might be sensibly located in industrial parks with dedicated SMR heat-&-power plants.

I saw a video a while back about how SMRs could utilise existing or decommissioned coal and gas plant facilities to reduce costs even more. Using the existing turbines and replacing boilers with SMRs seems a practical and cost effective solution to me. Not that it will ever happen in NZ, there would be to much opposition to anything nuclear no matter how potentially climate saving it may be.

Not a fan of nuclear fission, but I have to concede it's the only viable stop gap until renewables, batteries, and fusion are in place.

Can the SMR design be used in mobile applications? What is the Min height of the reactor?

I am an old Civil Engineer, UNSW. Construction Contracting. I have worked on large projects including coal fired power station and power transmission lines. The 'vital few' items are the biggest danger when tendering and overlooked. Like if you tendered for a house and a solid gold roof was specified. But you missed the 'solid gold metal' part. Nuclear is a central power system. In an electric world the AEMO said that you would have 4 times extra demand. So 5 nuclear power plants, not one. So 5 distribution grids. The grids are the killer overlooked item, but 'VITAL' matter in the proposed scheme. $TRILLIONS of extra costs plus the $TRILLIONS in extra nuclear power plants. And what is the point, as the Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott said if the world keeps on pumping out CO2. If,( a huge if ), if nuclear is the world's chosen energy system to stop CO2 then every dictator will be delighted to have his own nuclear industry. The USA military costs will explode. So let's add MILITARY COSTS to the nuclear power solution. Does anyone see the problem? Many are delighted with the nuclear solution 😀. Many fear the warmer climate but the nuclear winter was the greatest fear for the past 75 years. Atomic bomb mushroom clouds, was that all fear mongering ?

Please put capital costs and NPV as if grid was entirely built of each tech. Current NEM ISP and CSIRO GenCost list capital costs at nameplate and ignore storage and backup. This makes it hard to work out real costs. Simlarly LCOE is misleading since it ignores intermittency. Also, NEM in 2050 assumes 20% curtailment, something else omitted from the renewable-heavy LCOE and relativr Caoex graphs. Message me for more info, ive been doing analysis at work as well as from my own interest.

There was a key idea that was not clearly covered. Dr. Reyes mention the ability to load follow. This is necessary because renewables are not dispatchable. Nuclear is the only carbon free *dispatchable* energy. When everyone comes home in the evening, turns on the lights and the oven, wind and solar are typically reducing output. The sun is going down and wind cannot be counted on either. This power has to be replaced with dispatchable energy.

I wonder how they plan to do maintenance and exchange of fuel rods.

Dose nuclear need saving. Small nuclear is more efficient but that is because the conventional large scale plants were not designed for ultimate efficiency for power generation, I have heard that they were designed for the production of weapons grade materials Please correct me if I am wrong But I believe nuclear has a future In power generation

Generation 4 reactors offer huge potential over common, current PWR reactors. With greater safety, less waste and lower cost. Gen 4 reactors should be considered on their own merits. China now has two Gen 4 reactor prototypes. There are a number of different types of Gen 4 reactors. Britain should be producing SMR reactors by 2030. Mainly with Rolls-Royce. The US may have a Gen 4 MSR, Molten Salt Reactor prototype reactor by 2030. Currently, we just need prototypes to prove Gen 4 technology.

Excellent video cast, very well done. Still a very long term solution to our carbon free energy needs but who would want to live next to one of these?

I love your videos and the work that you do! ❤️. However, I am not a fan of nuclear because of a complete failure in development of a way to dispose of the waste. Currently, there are more than 90,000 metric tonnes of radioactive nuclear wastes in the United States alone. While the amount of power generated and the fewer emissions are very good, ultimately the waste issue is a time bomb waiting to go off. San Onofre nuclear plant has had numerous problems during its decommissioning. Renewables are really the way of the future. I hope you continue to look into and design improved and innovative energy sources. Thank you. 😎

My only strong opinions are: 1. Plenty of power, 24/7, as and where needed, and 2. No atmospheric pollution with GHG or any other unwanted gases. Renewables at this point are inadequate because they rely on coal and gas to provide 24/7 continuous power. This is self evidently unacceptable.

One thing that prevents nuclear leading the transition is geopolitics. People who want a 100% nuclear world often forget that other nations exist, that they're probably not happy with having nuclear power.

9:53 target established by the customer. Nuff said

"Prohibited by Law", and what does that mean to Citizens of a Democracy who grew up in an era under the "Nuclear Umbrella" when Conscription of 18 years olds before they had been Legislated the right to vote was considered a legitimate decision for a Government afraid of the "Domino Theory" that justified War in Vietnam. So if it's a natural human behaviour to throw oneself into personal danger to help others in immediate trouble, it's considered an honourable duty to your Nation to volunteer for Military Defence of home and family.., and worthy of elevated respect for Service in what could be Combat situations and prevention of Armed Conflict on home territories. Therefore the Sailors in Nuclear Ships on the tipping point of Mutually Assured Destruction, or potentially a nasty incident if their Reactors were destroyed by Enemy Fire and the incident became deadly, these are people who deserve the most perfected of democratic benefits such a Society can provide for them and their families. If SMRs are the ultimate tool in the success of Democracy, and Fossil Fuels are obviously the cause for failure ,controlled by the total abuse of Military Defence Volunteer sacrifice, exactly why is this the most exaggerated cause for denial in sharing security benefits and health-welfare, avoidance hypocrisy of Nuclear States? Why is there a surplus of death instead of life, in Party Politics.

There is nothing about the current crop of SMRs that reduce the capital per kWh, the long investment periods and the regulatory risks. This is what killed the traditional nuclear industry, and SMRs are a very old idea that could never be demonstrated, and not for lack of trying. With renewable and storage prices per kWh tanking, no sane investor will tie up capital for decades into new nuclear plants.

The grid is the money maker. Taking power from every where.

It keeps surprising why everbody talks about small reactors as such a novelty. Submarines have been using small reactors for decades

One note of caution - LCOE/strike price costs are not all that useful for costing externalities/total costs of every energy source, whether that is gas turbines without carbon tax, renewables without backup power, or nuclear with the "nuclear waste issue" (though I disagree that this problem is of the same magnitude of the former two). Everyone likes to quote that Lazard table but sort of glosses over the bottom of the table wherein a ton of caveats are listed. They are intended for investors of a single power plant in order to do accounting (not coincidentally this is lazards business...). They are not intended to show the costs that said power plant imposes on the grid to make everything work with the reliability we expect. Or the sensitivity of each particular technologys costs to commodity prices. Et cetera. It is not for no reason that, for example, germany pays some of the highest residential electricity costs in the world before the current energy crisis and will be paying quite a bit more in part thanks to their closure of "expensive" nuclear in favour of "cheap" natural gas to take the load when the dunkelflautes/wind droughts happen, as does happen on occasion with weather. The short-term may not be that much better either for renewables, as they tend to be the most materials-heavy forms of energy, which means that impending commodity price shocks are a correspondingly bigger problem for the very impressive cost-curve progress we have seen thus far.

Another excellent video Rosie. Thanks. A few massive flashing warning signs jump out at me. Feature creep and minimum viable product are critically important concepts, and the downfall of so many new companies. Even simple product ideas are very difficult to execute in practice. They're making an SMR. That's a really great thing. Stop there and get that working. Add in all this extra stuff like high temperature hydrogen production and they're doomed. This is the trap that kills so many new companies. They're going to over-extend themselves trying to do all this other stuff and the whole company will implode.

Hello Rosie. I've been following you for a while now. I really enjoy your videos and find them very useful and insightful. I am a chemical engineering undergraduate and now I'm pursuing Masters in Energy Systems Engineering. I often find the energy domain very confusing and complex, so videos like these really help a lot and make me confident about my choice of pursuing energy😀.

Excellent video. Very informative and balanced.

While some nuclear power main remain in the future, I don't see the cost going down as the guest expected (58$ in the best case and with public funding ... and with a new technology that has yet to be commercially viable). Standard nuclear is expensive due in part to safety regulations and small reactors while having an advantage there are still to be determined safe(r). A lot of hype is made around that technology while it's still in the works and has been for a while. Renewable is coming faster and better due to shorter iterations cycle and greater security and I think this is what is going to win in the long term. The war in ukraine is also reminding that human created threats can also be dangerous while using nuclear and they can be targeted in time of war .... or through terrorism. ANother way to look at this is that it's wayyyy too soon to declare the small reactor the solution for the future while they are still in development the same kind of thing that can be said for fusion power. Because despite the progress been made recently we're still waaayyyy before true commercial power for fusion (though the small reactors should hopefully come to fruition sooner than fusion).

Rosie Rosie Rosie good RU-vid work. When ever you talk to experts in nuclear they will take you to their comfort zone. They are highly paid. You are an engineer. You are paid by ????? Government or business. Do the numbers but include all sub headings. Include military costs, include monopoly costs, include today's technology becomes ancient technology costs, Include that renewable energy supply becomes part off the PV panels supply and recycling ♻️ You might need a non engineer to publish. I am an old civil engineer with grandchildren. I knew /know a few brilliant people who spoke about nuclear as the answer but then technology and world politics developments meant that dispersed energy with EV car battery and the grid was the best answer. Australia is building a 5,000 klm power cable to Singapore. We can ship solar energy anywhere in Australia and the world. We are 8,000 million billion m2 of sunlight 24/7/365. At 1kwhr/ m2. The USA is just bigger numbers. The Sahara desert and Europe and Africa just bigger numbers. All this is possible in small steps.

Your graphic of the costs of Solar and Wind is faulty at one level: it does not include the cost of the [so far non-existent] batteries that are essential to overcome the intermittency problem. If there was a cost comparison of technical equivalence, you would have to allow for batteries or the massive, typically 4x overbuild in capacity to get reliable continuity. Some argue that intermittency can be overcome by wide area power networks and this is partially true. But for a true costing of solar and wind one would have to also factor in the cost of such a massive power distribution grid, able to cater for the multi directional peak current flows necessary for grid stability. This amounts to disinformation on the merits of solar and wind by omission of the costs of technical equivalence with nuclear power.

Couldn't opponents bomb such a facility to disperse contained nuclear isotopes. Probably the only concern I have, and its true of conventional reactors as well I guess; only more so. I guess old mine sites, with established declines for access would avoid this, but a constraint of being 'location specific'. Great interview by the way.

I'm sceptical of the HTSE part, simply because that would work for any other thermal power plant, yet somehow it is not commonly done today.

I have a couple of comments: Firstly, Dr Reyes wording related to expected costs was interestingly chosen. He did not say they would meet the cost range; or that their modelling suggested they would, or forecasts implied they would. The only cost he gave and the only evidence for it was the target price the client had specified. He used the wording that they/his team “want” to meet the price. He did not say they believed they would or could. I realise I could be reading too much into this. However, I am used to scientists being precise in order to be clear. He - possibly deliberately, possibly not deliberately - did not at any point state what he thought the price would be, or what any modelling by his team suggested the price would be. I realise it would be very hard to model pricing, but they either have not modelled it; or they know the results of the modelling were unreliable; or he very carefully did not say what the modelled prices were. Whatever the cause, we have no idea what the price actually will be, and I have little faith it will be the price mentioned. Secondly, in terms of land area required, I agree that nuclear plant/infrastructure requires little land for the volume of electricity produced. However, full size nuclear generators in parts of the US at least have exclusion zones around them, so they actually “lock up” sizeable areas of land (far more than the plant itself.) If SMRs needed those exclusion zones also, then I think the land/space requirements could still be sizeable. I don’t know if SMRs need an exclusion zone or not. (I don’t even if the full size plants ever truely needed one, I just know at least some have them.) But if they will be required to have one, that might alter the size comparison so to speak.

It should be noted that the levelised cost of electricity in the chart provided is not a true reflection of the costs to consumers. the consumer's cost has the cost of back up electricity and the cost of extending the grid to far flung dispersed renewable generations sites, factored in the cost of the power they pay for. With these costs renewables cause a rise n power charges very different to the chart that you used. good discussion otherwise.

Did I miss it, or was lifetime not mentioned? Presumably, the fissile material is in the form of solid rods, and these require regular replacement in a 'normal' reactor, something like every couple of years or less. I do not recall hearing anything about fuel lifetime or replacement intervals. This must have a big impact on running cost and/or lifetime cost of thus type of reactor system, surely?

Please take a close look at Moltex and Elysium. These use molten chloride salts (basically table salt) to carry the fuel salt and as a heat transfer medium. The list of advantages over traditional PWR (large or small) is extensive. The biggest bring they can literally burn used “spent” fuel to make 20x more energy per kg of fuel and cut the radioactive life by 1000x.

Thanks Rosie for an excellent update on Nuscale. If the Nuscale model or some similar was developed to be a drop in replacement for the boilers in current coal fired power stations, the nations who own those would not have wasted their investment. Small modular reactors can and should be developed to be literal boiler replacements. Modern small power stations are often made up of a series of 250MW to 600MW subunits to combine in multiples to make up the whole power station. That’s why there are invariably 1 smoke stack and 1 cooling tower per production unit. So a 250MW unit would require a cluster of 4 Nuscale units to replace the boiler. A 600MW unit would require 8 units. These numbers, times the number of coal fired power stations worldwide would make mass manufacturing, installation and post processing of the units both economic and relatively rapid to implement. Right now, 2022, power stations are being built throughout the world, in small and large countries. Most of these are still coal fired due to the relatively cheap technology and price of coal which does not include the uncosted externality of CO2 generation. The rate of power construction in fossil fuelled power stations, taken worldwide, way exceeds the installation of clean energy so the graphs are diverging. Ergo, we cannot meet net 0 carbon goals. But drop in boiler replacements would enable a rapid reversal of that trend.

I'm generally impressed by your video. NuScale is a very interesting vendor and have been for a while. Even though they haven't pursued Gen IV tech, they've achieved so many key features of what a power plant should be now that in my mind, it's a really good yard stick for a "sensible design". Too many reactors seem to be primarily technology advancement, and a solution second, whereas I think NuScale have taken a good approach to making a good solution and developing what they needed to. Some of the key issues w/nuclear plants: Risk of financing a plant (e.g. Sizewell C): modular design used here means reduced risk for financiers and shorter time between starting the investment and seeing first returns Challenging build and construction (e.g. Hinkley Point C, Vogtle): smaller components lend themselves to factory manufacturing Low variability of supply (e.g. entire UK fleet): multiple ways to load follow Safety (e.g. Fukushima): passive pumping and passive safety systems Not all of the problems are addressed by NuScale, but it looks like they've made a big dent solving the problems of getting nuclear power plants onto the grid. We'll see how it progresses from here, because so far all of these are promised benefits rather than demonstrated. I'm hopeful though. I'm also hopeful that other vendors will start to take a similar approach of solving the problems and not just pursuing interesting technology.

Great video. I'm firmly in the pro-nuclear camp but I can't help feeling the technology is largely finished for power production. With every passing year regulations that are already absurdly tight get tighter to the point where new projects become impractical. On top of that there is no political will to do anything about the problem, no politician that values their political career will stand up and say nuclear should or even could be part of the solution. Maybe if the current sky high energy prices continue we'll see people start to accept nuclear a bit more but I can't help feeling the anti-nuclear sentiment is so strongly ingrained it might never change.

Let’s not forget nuclear plants not being built on time and within budget. Further in Ontario the operator went bankrupt with the rate payers paying for it. Further nuclear power can’t get insurance so as an industry they had to create their own insurance. Further in Canada their liability is capped at $1B. That’s $1000 per person for a population of 1M. Toronto has 3 million people. Further nuclear waste does not have a storage location with it all sitting on site. Who pays for thousands of years of monitoring to make sure it does not contaminate ground water or Lake Ontario?

The answer to that question can be answered by NuScale who even after the taxpayer paide for the NRC review, gave them free government land on which to build, and $2 billion in matching funds, canceled their project as too costly. Their investors are now suing for FRAUD.

EXTERNAL COSTS, stay focused everyone. C02 impacts on climate, and it's destabilisation, and with Massive costs. So fossil fuels bad. Electric power to everything including Electric vehicles and the home. TRIPLED DEMAND. Nuclear power plants to supply electricity but now TRIPLED DEMAND and TRIPLED the size of the grid to distribute the TRIPLED ELECTRICAL SUPPLY from TRIPLED size of the power plants. Does any one see a problem ? ? ? Every country on the planet needs the same solution to stop CO2. 100,000 Nuclear power reactors. 70 years of non proliferation of nuclear problems, now not a problem. ??? TRIPLED military defence costs, the USA being the biggest target on the planet. May I suggest Nuclear winter would also be a big climate problem. And so for the logical to consider Rooftop solar PV system Every building IS connected to the grid today. EV batteries are 100kwh, huge. Home fixed battery is 14kwh, a baby. So for max value use the EV battery. Ezi pezi. Smarten the existing grid, much cheaper than building 3 grids. And CHEAP. The Daily drive is 7kwh, ezi pezi to top up from home power. And CHEAP. No new power plants, And CHEAP. Renewables cheaper than nuclear power including storage, and millions of EV batteries. Nuclear electricity costs have flatlined above Renewables. The total nuclear solution needs TRIPLED the amount of new power plants, and TRIPLED the amount of grids. And nuclear power costs above fossil fueled power. FMD does nobody think.

Million of Australian roofs have only 30m2 of solar on 200m2 roofs. Because of restrictions from the government. NO NEW LAND IS NEEDED OUTSIDE URBAN AREAS. Every building is connected to the grid. 'Monkeys' can install rooftop solar .

Engineers have to look at the full picture if they are to have any credibility. I am an old Construction Engineer, Civil and Building. I have successfully achieved major redesign on many projects, even Professional Design Engineers can make mistakes. I recall an extremely young female engineer student asking the most senior Building Structural Design Engineer one question about wind loading on a brand new building in NY, CITI BANK CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS. Fortunately she followed up her own question and the failure in Design lead to the entire city officials being galvanised to save 1,000s of lives. The Citicorp Center engineering crisis was the discovery, in 1978, of a significant structural flaw in Citicorp Center, then a recently completed skyscraper in New York City, and the subsequent effort to quietly make repairs over the next few months. The building, now known as Citigroup Center, occupied an entire block and was to be the headquarters of Citibank. Its structure, designed by William LeMessurier, had several unusual design features, including a raised base supported by four offset stilts, and diagonal bracing which absorbed wind loads from upper stories. Google the story. Nuclear is so large an investment it will block all new research into renewable energy.

Finally, something in regards a load following approach. Their approach (reducing reactor output) seems somewhat counterintuitive to me, but I guess they did think more about it than me:D Combining hydrogen production (for seasonal storage) with nuclear power was certainly something which would have been nice to have here in germany. By combining it like this, you can run the power plants and electrolyser always at 100% (most economical and highest efficiency) and only when the renewables are unable to support the grit you reduce the hydrogen production and directly sent the energy into the grit. Now they want to produce the hydrogen from the overproduction of the renewables:D - you can't operate an electrolyser more uneconomically than this, even if you tried

Concentrated generation and then disperse across the grid. $Billions/ m2. Rooftop solar is dispersed and supplies the grid, the grid does the concentrating of energy. Electrical energy never knew if it was coming or going it just needed to be enough. Transformers work backwards and forwards. Electrical EV car battery 100kwh will be everywhere in every home, plugged into the grid and trading Electrical Power for money. 33kwh on 8.3 million homes. 20 million EV car batteries. The grid exists and the 40% capacity that was for non industrial needs is now available for additional industrial production 😀. At no cost. 90% of petroleum imports not needed. Monopoly investment in fossil fuel industry is $300Billion cash flow every year in Australia. Monopoly political donations. Even fat man Clive Palmer said he stopped Labor winning with his $83million spend. And he is 'fighting against' political donations. More Monopoly power supply is now not necessary and stupid.

Happily today in the UK our government and the opposition confirmed more base load nuclear plant would be constructed ASAP. Also more offshore floating wind farms. It looks like we will have the most expensive electricity in the world from 1st April. I like your videos from an engineering point of view but I know first hand you can create pricing comparisons to highlight a view point . Around the year 2000 a study on the comparative costs of all forms of generation was done for the UK government by a company I was involved with. The study included all phases of a project including decommissioning. Most expensive with a life of 20 years ? Yes off shore wind £145/MWhr Cheapest with a life span of 60 years? Nuclear £60/ MWh Fast forward 20 years and the improved wind turbine designs have improved the utilisation factor for some models to as much as 45 % from 25 %. Life span increased to 25 years. These improvements make some positive difference But in the UK price in a credit for carbon saved and miraculously wind becomes much cheaper. I once worked in all six of the UK s nuclear plant which were funded by our then nationalist power industry and we were a world leader . Privatisation happened and no new nuclear and all skills in nuclear disbanded and now gone. In the last few years the realization dawned that perhaps new nuclear would be good. To get the international private sector involved the UK government had to guarantee a strike price of £145/ MWh……….Also the complete lack of talent in the civil service all contributes to high prices for the first of a kind new 4 th generation plant. Hopefully the Nth of a kind prices will be 50 % less. Bet you Germany keeps it’s nuclear plant running a bit longer now they have decided not to import Russian gas!!

Mainly because the main issues with nuclear power isn't technical, or even rational, I personally don't think there are technical solutions for them. I don't think SMRs are going to solve anything, small sure, 5-ish or so, percent of a typical "Chernobyl-style" reactor, does anyone in their right mind think that 5% of the Chernobyl accident would be a sh*t happens no big deal kind of event? The answer is: No. And in this case, up to six such reactors, close together, that adds up to about 30% of a "Chernobyl-style" reactor. I know, I know, these reactors are safe, as every type of reactor has been, until in some cases the opposite was proven. In the CGI the reactors share a small body of water, one drought away from loosing that safeness. Yeah, I saw the river, a river can reduce the probability of lack of water, not eliminate it. Also, a river adds an increased risk of severe flooding. At coast, you have possibly tsunamis, other natural catastrophes, threat from other countries, and so on. It's actually difficult if not impossible to find a place where there are no such issues, at least combined with a huge, unmet demand for power. About that, you can be too far from any large grid to be able to get a decent connection, OR you can have a lack of land, you don't have both issues at the same time. Nope, the claimed niche doesn't exist. A somewhat problematic grid situation combined with a slightly problematic land situation sure, but new type of nuclear reactor plus hydrogen storage-level situation, nope. Also, when it comes to nuclear, accidents are considered severe catastrophes even if there are no severe [relatively speaking] consequences. So, it will take a single accident with SMR, even without casualties with enough media attention, to make it virtually impossible to get approval to install any more. And with mass production, accidents are virtually unavoidable. Production of hydrogen, well of course. A bit higher efficiency than ordinary electrolysis, great, but it doesn't matter much. Also, higher efficiency compared to what, electrolysis at room temperature? Why, and even how, would room temperature be maintained in commercial scale hydrogen production with electrolysis? Also, storage, even at 30 MPa, that's 300 bar, you need 50 cubic meters of tank volume to store 1 ton of hydrogen (roughly, and at 20 °C). 30 MPa is scuba tank pressure territory, it doesn't make much sense to compress much further for stationary storage. 250 tons * 50 cubic meters = 12.500 cubic meters tank capacity. Reversible HTSE and fuel cells combined, well, now we left modifying/improvement of existing technologies, that's not equivalent of developing the first production model car, or airplane, that's more like an equivalent of developing a mass produced flying car model in a world where there has been no mass produced car or airplane yet. If you don't even think you can become cost competitive (per MWh) compared wind and solar now, you definitely won't be able to compete 10 years from now with a combination of wind, solar, improved transmission capacities, DSM and enough batteries to make a more reliable energy supply than a few SMRs and hydrogen storage. And, honestly, the cost of alternatives 10 years from now is irrelevant, the cost of alternatives the the proposed technology reaches global significant importance, at the earliest, that should be roughly 40 years from now, assuming best case scenario. By then we will have solar PV built in surface materials of buildings, at negligible extra cost, wind turbines will be developed in ways I can't predict, batteries will be extremely cheap compared to current situation, things like V2G, DSM and VPP will be implemented "everywhere" unless they have been made obsolete be even better future solutions.

Nuscale is a money casing business They will corner the market for 60 to 100years and with government guarantee profits. In Australia we have 'Gold plated poles and wires' said the Royal Commission into over charged consumers.

One of the problems with the traditional ones is risk. There doesn't need to be a Chernobyl kind of accident to cause extreme economical damage. Here in Switzerland we run an ancient reactor. Just releasing a moderate amount of radioactives to wind or the river would destroy potentially trillions of infrastructure and property. Just because you have to leave the area. And for how much are they insured? About 3 billion! So that risk is never included in the cost calculation. And what about waste? The most extreme of it needs to be safely stored for millennias! Who pays for that? But hey, Australia has lots of space, why don't you just take it and dump it somewhere. 😉and guard it for that time, because you need to keep terrorists and such scum away from it. Otherwise they can make easy dirty bombs! Then, what about running time? Self contained means no exchange of burning material? So you break down the whole power plant after 15 years? Or do you just exchange the reactors? But then the whole thing needs to be much bigger and more complex again. Same goes, security against terrorism? Airplane crash? Bombs? So I'm not sure they will have that much savings as they think. But all for much less energy and probably less time. So how does the cost scale then for the whole time. And lastly, so the earliest full scale shall run end of this decade? If everything goes as planned! What it never does... So real data will be just available then. So wider adaption around 2040 maybe. So way to late to really tackle the problem we need to solve now! Why don't we go now with what we already have, do proper research and not silicone valley type of fundraising for a maybe... If it works good it can start to stabilize the grid when our first or second wave of solar and wind needs to be renewed. Or maybe it will be totally obsolete by that time anyway.

Small cores need highly enriched fuel, which is in short supply if you dont want to buy in russia. High temperature electrolysis using nuclear Heat is the way to go for hydrogen. It works best at>600 C, which cant be achieved in a water cooled reaktor. You need molten salt or liquid metal as coolant. High pressure gases could bei used, but would leave the core uncooled in case of a leak - i wouldnt recommend that.!

Near and medium term the best energy solution is offered by the Ed Pheil designed reactor that is walkaway safe and burns the vast store of existing 1% spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive material to 97% spent. It involves only existing technology and the huge amount of usable fuel being stored at great expense at existing nuclear plants as spent fuel. The 97% end of cycle burn means the remaining waste needs safeguard for only 300 years. It burns weapon waste also to the same end-product.

Look also at Copenhagen Atomics, they want to produce a SMR with 2 cents per kWh thermal energy and fast scaling up production

Today in Sweden, our almost 5000 wind propellers produced 0% electricity... and we had record high electricity prices

SMR, LIFTR, Thorium will be the future. Time to logically bring the future into now.

Nuclear I see as a necessary component because it reduces the amount of energy storage and overcapacity necessary of renewables, since it provides a dependable amount of energy that doesn't need storage.

Look at the problem from military defence 'eyes'. PLEASE.

👍 It's great to see what's "new" from an engineering perspective with the vacuum and water sealing safety tech!

The costs she showed for solar totally ignore the grid costs which more than quadruple solar costs.

Hi my dear friend Nakita ko channel mo sa comment section sa email ko kaya Hindi n aq Ng dlawang isip na subscribe Kita my friend from Philippines 🇵🇭 God bless you and full support full watch video ❤️❤️❤️❤️🇵🇭

100,000 SMR around the world to save the planet. 60years lifespans for each. 60,000 tonnes/yr uranium mined today and we are going to save the planet by mining more uranium, 😀

Rosie love your channel but go look up the LCOE of nukes, it’s most expensive electric possible. Unsubscribing once you shill nukes starting the video with facts I know are wrong.

How does the safety and safety cost develop if instead of having only some big nuclear plants placed miles away from populated areas, versus having one modular plant for each city of neighboorhood of a large city? Linearly, super-linearly, or exponentially?

Heya Rosie- great content as always. I wonder if anyone has dealt with the issue of nuclear waste, and/or included in cost analysis.

A well balanced argument, I think it’s too easy for people to come to emotionally attached to the issue regardless of the facts surrounding Nuclear

Real nice exposition. I wonder if you have done any on ground and air source heat pups I have both, no they do a great job, and ground source in particular is invisible!

Do those numbers on price of wind and solar power include the cost of storage needed for them to function as baseload sources, or, alternatively, the cost (financial and environmental) of various "peaker plants" (usually gas powered) used to "smooth out" their output?

Every nuclear plant is insured by the government where it sits. That means that tax payers take the risk, and some private company gets the profits.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, ideas and videos. Very good review on this nuclear option. As impressive as their safety accomplishments are they are still old fashioned nuclear with all the problems related to the spent fuel. channels like yours are important to bring the facts to the younger generations. One thing to remember is used fuel isn’t really nuclear waste, it’s better to call it untapped potential energy. The newer design of fast reactors or even Thorium MSR reactors process the fuel to a higher degree and use more of the energy contained within leaving less byproducts with shorter storage requirements. Might be interesting for you to do more episodes related to nuclear energy and some of the other options out there that really need to be brought to the public and the light of day. Wishing you the best, looking forward to seeing more of your videos in the future.

Hi Rosie. One thing that has always baffled me is why isn't the nuclear waste produced as classed as 'Emissions? Considering that the cost of removal, processing and very long storage times of that waste surely cannot be classed as anything but. Would love to hear your thoughts.

Where do I invest?

It seems we're getting more mature when it comes to discussing nuclear energy.

This was a good discussion, NuScale will probably be the first big player on the market followed closely by Rolls Royce with their shipping container sized SMRs. SMRs are the best way to overcome the cost overruns associated with construction boondoggles since the major components are produced by one company with an interest in making efficient use of their time and not the other way around. Also the licensing process for modular plants over bespoke plants is much more streamlined (at least in the US) and thus much cheaper. Hopefully the fossil fuel industry in Australia looses enough sway over the law makers so Australians can benefit from this technology in addition to their abundant solar and Li resources.

SMR’s are the way forward

Thank you for this video. Although I am a longtime opposer to nuclear waste produced by such powerplays, I am slightly positive about this approach, IF it goes together with let’s say 90% renewable energy from wind, solar, water and sea and natural storage systems and a decent way to deal with this waste. Honestly, I know CO2 is a problem, but I don’t want to see that problem being replaced by let’s say cesium 137 causing thyroid cancer.

The US imports almost all its uranium. And the kicker is half their nuclear power plants rely on Russian uranium. So going nuclear does not make them independent of foreign energy. Kazakstan is by far the largest supplier of uranium. You and others have made content on going nuclear options. I think people including me would like to learn once mined what processing needs to be done before it can be used. Why is Kazakstan so far ahead in being a supplier? Does the procurement price go up if more nuclear power stations come online? How much does the cost of uranium affect the cost of electricity? I’ve heard a power station needs one truck of uranium per year per million customers. Is that correct? So it’s not fuel it and forget it. I don’t think people understand that. So even with small or micro reactors we have lots of uranium shipments taking place and is it dangerous during shipping? How about being stolen and used for weapons or dirty bombs. Dumping the truck in a lake.

The US imports almost all its uranium. And the kicker is half their nuclear power plants rely on Russian uranium. So going nuclear does not make them independent of foreign energy. Kazakstan is by far the largest supplier of uranium. You and others have made content on going nuclear options. I think people including me would like to learn once mined what processing needs to be done before it can be used. Why is Kazakstan so far ahead in being a supplier? Does the procurement price go up if more nuclear power stations come online? How much does the cost of uranium affect the cost of electricity? I’ve heard a power station needs one truck of uranium per year per million customers. Is that correct? So it’s not fuel it and forget it. I don’t think people understand that. So even with small or micro reactors we have lots of uranium shipments taking place and is it dangerous during shipping? How about being stolen and used for weapons or dirty bombs. Dumping the truck in a lake.

It's a pity their project in Utah was cancelled back in January 2024. I hope they get a chance for another project to test if it's commercially viable or not. I guess the Utah project showed it wasn't.

Of the six proposed fourth-generation nuclear reactor types, the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) is the only type that has high fuel efficiency, no danger of explosion, and does not generate substantial amounts of plutonium. The fissile uranium-233 produced by the MSR is difficult to use for weapons because of the presence of highly radioactive uranium-232. While other Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) can serve as a short-term solution, MSRs are considered a more promising mid-term solution due to their potential to address these issues more comprehensively. Hopefully, we will have fusion by the time we run out of uranium and thorium. The differences between Light Water Reactors (LWR) and Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (TMSR) are significant in fuel utilization and waste production. LWRs use approximately 0.5-1% of uranium fuel, leading to the generation of long-lived radioactive waste due to inefficient energy conversion and the use of enriched uranium. In contrast, TMSRs can achieve fuel efficiency of up to 99%. This is achieved by converting fertile thorium-232 into fissile uranium-233, substantially reducing waste production and more manageable radioactive waste. Uranium Molten Salt Reactors (UMSR) are just as effective as TMSRs. 800 kg of natural thorium in a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) can generate 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity for one year. In comparison, generating the same amount of energy in a Light Water Reactor (LWR) would require mining 200 tons of uranium. In an MSR, the storage requirement for 83 percent of the spent fuel is 10 years, and 300 years for the remaining 17 percent, whereas in an LWR, 28 tons of spent fuel need storage for 300,000 years. MSRs can utilize the spent fuel from LWRs. A coal power station will need to burn 3.5 million tons of coal and emit 10 million tons of carbon dioxide to produce the same amount of energy for one year. That amount of coal contains 3 to 14 tons of uranium, 10 to 50 tons of thorium, and 3 to 35 tons of arsenic. MSRs can adjust power output to match electricity demand, thanks to the inherent and automatic load-following capability provided by the fluid nature of the molten salt coolant. A key safety feature of MSR is that it automatically adjusts to prevent overheating. This is achieved through a "negative thermal reactivity coefficient," which means that as the temperature rises, the reactor's reactivity decreases, preventing a runaway chain reaction. Additionally, the MSR has a "negative void reactivity coefficient," ensuring that the reactivity decreases if there is a loss of coolant or boiling, preventing potential overheating. These safety measures help keep the reactor stable and safe under various conditions. Looking ahead to 2040, China plans to deploy Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) for desalination of seawater, district heating or cooling, hydrogen production, powering of ships equipped with Thermoacoustic Stirling Generators, and power plants with Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Turbines within its borders and globally. In the Earth's crust, thorium is nearly four times more abundant than uranium. Every atom of natural thorium can be harnessed, unlike natural uranium, where only 1 out of every 139 atoms can be used. China produces thorium as a byproduct of its rare earth processing. Similar to the trends observed with solar and wind technologies, MSR costs are anticipated to decrease with the scaling up of production and the development of robust supply chains.

My father's family all worked Oakridge Nuclear Facility & as an electrician last worked construction on the control room: CONSIDER the following, chosen in History between Nuclear for WAR or for SAFE ENERGY🤔 "Thorium-based nuclear power generation is fueled primarily by the nuclear fission of the isotope uranium-233 produced from the fertile element thorium. A thorium fuel cycle can offer several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle[Note 1]-including the much greater abundance of thorium found on Earth, superior physical and nuclear fuel properties, and reduced nuclear waste production. One advantage of thorium fuel is its low weaponization potential; it is difficult to weaponize the uranium-233/232 and plutonium-238 isotopes that are largely consumed in thorium reactors.", Web At age 75 in a suffocating CONSERVATIVE, choosing "belief over reason", find both of you refreshing❤ Into 11th year of solitude. (Interesting science quandary: in Myers Briggs, I test 50% Extravert & 50% Introvert, yet find that I am 100% of each🤔)! OOP! 😂❤

Potatohead has been talking about the AP1000 specifically. Have you done this? There are also disposal of waste, as the possibility of refining and reusing the waste. PS, I find it hilarious that almost as soon as the leader of the opposition announced that Collie is the preferred location for nuclear, that McGowan announced a new wind farm nearby.

The smr project, NuScale, in the USA costs have blown out from USD 5 billion to USD 9 billion !!!! And all you get is 462mw !!!! For thst dort of money you could buy 10 (yes ten) 500/2000mw batteries!!!

Hi Rosie, great timing. I just watched a video by Matt from Undecided about small and micro. Can’t wait to listen to this on my commute!

I'm all for nuclear energy development and installation, as long as the nuke-fanatics don't drag down the current (MASSIVE) head-start wind, solar and batteries has. I agree; we need all the energy options we can get our hands on :P. We'll have greater resilience and self-reliance that way.

Take a study into Wikipedia: Complex Adaptive System Also, the key inventor : John Henry Holland, here at the University of Michigan Psychology & College of Engineerng Computer Science Departments. Wikipedia: John Henry Holland Also, see the Santa Fe Institute's ongoing work. : Wkipedia: Santa Fe Institute Thank you Roise. Have you considered MIT or U of M here in the US??

Thank-you! I always enjoy your very informative videos. In this one, remarks were made about reducing costs, but I never heard “standardized design” or “standardized production processes” mentioned. And THAT is really the key. Same for safety. Regarding safety, “passive safety measures” were mentioned, but not described. Also not mentioned, the expected life of the SMR, and safe disposal of an SMR. This is the first time I have seen an SMR immersed in water. Steel rusts. It also grows brittle when exposed to radiation. How are these issues dealt with? Hydrogen production was discussed only in terms of supplying chemical plants. What about steel plants? Aluminum? Recycling plants? What about the use of SMRs and SMR hydrogen by electric utilities to flatten the duck curve? Is that actually feasible? Is anyone working on it? Thanks again for a thought provoking piece.

Small Modular Reactors Safer NO: They are to be used to allow some to be bombed in a war but other to keep going; this is how the Internet works and was developed in the first place

Rosie your questions are low grade, take this top question. Being small sized and modularized, NuScale Nuke can easily change hands. What if terrorists hijack this module and take position of it. Question: What's next? A new Government policy must be established strictly stating the highest penalty on the cost of risk to the General Public. Must be written that CEO's, BOD, and investors of NuScale must be responsible and criminally accountable if such event occurs. Terrorists have been dreaming and waiting for modular Nukes to get into the market so they can acquire radio active materials. Seems NuScale will become an accessory.

As small nuclear reactors as much subcontractors could be in game, small companies more efficient. Year by year such companies could reduce cost of all systems, from reactor production till nuc waste storage.

Things change in the six months since this excellent interview. Maybe the burning of Brown Coal and related Armaments Industries will be seen for what a treacherous evil they really are, ..one that inverts the facts of Nuclear Energy and obfuscates the actual cause-effect QM-TIME positioning phenomenon itself, (eg Fusion is universal resonance bonding not two knobs of discrete atoms bashed together.., and "Temperature" is a metric similarly designed to confuse.). "It won't be ready"?, not if Dark Money has anything to do with it. So what is keeping all those Ships and Submarines operational if there is no support industry already to adapt to the SMR Production Line Factory? (One is tired of the vile contempt for basic intelligence we get from those who we [don't] trust any more in [corrupted] Governments everywhere) Actuality is Flash conscious awareness of real-time Function Fusion-Fission, ONE-INFINITY Singularity. If you don't know what it is in scientific terms it's because words are sight-sound adaptation to holistic concepts Physicists and Sciencing Re-search Engineering have most contact with in the reality of controlled thought experimentation. In which NOW is "Nucleated" QM-TIME Completeness cause-effect of Singularity-Duality holographic point positioning, something that is urgently needed to be reiterated Educationally from First Principle. (Stop the MAD-NESS)

Looking at some regions Ontario for example, 65% of its electricity generation is from the 3 Nuclear Plants Bruce, Darlington, Pickering (the Bruce at 5.6gwatts being the largest in the world today. Those were built over the 70 and 80s and in fact is one of the first SMRs in the works (At Darlington). Conversely Ontario from 2010 built some 2700 wind turbines (assuming at 3-4million each a total of $11billion) which generate at most $7% of the provinces electricity. I know there is a question of how whether or people want to be next to nuclear plants, but there is a similar question of living near wind turbines that make a constant noise - and the possible effect on property values (and on livestock etc).

No commercial micro nuclear plant has ever been built on the face of the earth. Ever. Despite all the hype about the fabulous promise of micro nukes, all it's ever produced is scores of billions of dollars in investment for research. I love the promise of micro nukes, I'd love to see them fulfill their promise but there are a couple huge barriers that don't get talked about enough. One is the cost. Even if we set up assembly lines to mass produce micro nuclear reactors and radically lower the cost, it will still be obscenely expensive, WAY more expensive than conventional fossil fuel power. Most of the cost of nuclear is currently bore by the government so the rate payers don't see what their power is actually costing them, the true cost gets spread around (and hidden) to all the tax payers. That's problem one. The other problem is waste disposal. There currently isn't any place to put the waste. Again, the government (tax payers) is footing the bill for this so the rate payers don't know the real cost but the existing nuclear waste depots got filled up decades ago and opening a new one has been delayed again and again and again with no operating date in sight. So the radioactive waste sits in temporary storage for years and decades. Many of the nuclear plants decommissioned decades ago still have their extremely highly radioactive fuel rods on site. They were supposed to go to safe storage years and decades ago but there's currently 500,000 metric TONS of radioactive waste awaiting proper storage in the US and nowhere to put it. So it sits in "temporary" storage in industrial parks where you drive past it on your way to work everyday. In the US Biden just firehosed a shit ton of tax payer's money at more nuclear research. The money will be spent, research will be done, the same research that was done the last time, the time before that and the time before that. The conclusion will be, like it has been every other time, "nuclear energy has AMAZING potential and promise, we just have to solve these couple (insurmountable) problems to usher in a nirvana golden age of cheap, clean and plentiful energy." Listen, folks, micro nukes have been just a couple years and just a big wad of money away since the late 1940's. The problems they knew they had to surmount back then? Guess what? THOSE ARE STILL THE SAME PROBLEMS WE HAVE TO SURMOUNT TODAY. DESPITE INCREDIBLE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES IN EVERY FEILD, WE'RE STILL NO CLOSER TO SOLVING THOSE PROBLEMS. The real future of energy is in a battery that will make renewables practical on a grid scale. If even a tiny fraction of the money spent on nuclear research had been spent on battery research, we'd probably have a practical battery by now and economical, practical storage will ignite a 100 year frenzy of building out renewables. It's time to stop throwing good money after bad in pursuit of the fantasy of nuclear energy and move on to what we all know is the real long term future of energy, renewables. Renewable energy is already WAY cheaper than any other source, all it needs is the battery. Lets get on it.

BUT BUT BUT... What about SHIPS? We are fretting on how to power big container ships, with fanciful hydrogen/ammonia or aluminum-based fuels. Why not small reactors (such as aircraft carriers use)?