The World's Smallest Nuclear Reactor 

Who's going to pay for them? Study after study have shown nuclear reactors are 6x the price than solar and wind + battery storage, and nuclear takes: 15-20 for each plant to be built, with MASSIVE taxes levied on people to build and maintain them. No thanks! Solar and wind + battery storage is the solution.

@@MrArtist7777 Nuclear reactors obey the same economic laws as wind turbines: Economies of scale. Building 1 is ridiculously expensive,but building 30 (like the French did) makes them really cheap. Plus they offer a very different service: They work where the weather is rubbish for renewables, and last about x4 as long.

@@MrArtist7777 The typical service life of wind turbines and solar panels with subsidies is 15 years, with the possibility of extension by 5 years. The typical service life of nuclear power plants is 45 years, with the possibility of extension by 15 years. The service life of nuclear power plants of generations 3+ and 4 is 60 years, with the possibility of extension by 20 years. Calculate LCOE and CAPEX before writing strange words about "6x the price..."

The first 30 SMR reactors will generate energy at a price higher than $100 (93.5 euros) per MW at the moment. Taking into account typical construction delays, the price may increase by another 20-50%. At such a price, they will not be able to compete with other types of generation, except perhaps with diesel generators in Alaska or northern Canada.

I also agree with using Thorium as a nuclear fuel as well now! Here is a Wikipedia article which goes into some detail on the use of Thorium as a nuclear fuel: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power .

It is technologically impossible to control a huge number of generation sources and distribute energy stably without significant losses. Any generation sources with a capacity of less than 1 MW mean low voltage and the costs for transmission lines, substations, balancing, backup and maintenance are higher than for generation sources. All renewable energy with a capacity of less than 1 MW (and often less than 10 MW) is subsidized worldwide.

@@MihailG5541 It may be true that a centralized system would have a problems controlling a large number of sources. However, a decentralized system would be less complex. In a distributed virtual system, large scale inertia and frequency control would be replaced with localized battery modulated control. As to costs, renewable sources of power are more efficient. Centralized power stations waste two thirds of their energy to process heat. Golmud Solar Park in China is the world’s largest solar farm with a 2.8 GW base and it seems to be quite integrated into the grid.

@@chrisconklin2981 solar panels waste 80% of energy into the heat. Thermal power plants can be used in many cases such as plastic recycling, water desalination and so on

@@MihailG5541 Thank you for the comparison and please let me be more complete in comparison. I will not talk about nuclear as it is too complicated for this level of discussion. Regarding solar panels, the sunlight is free and the twenty percent that is converted into electricity instantaneously travels by wire, and is sometimes stored, on a grid system. Yes, we pay for this grid. Regarding fossil fuels they are archaic plants and animals that also depended upon sunlight. The process of mining/drilling, transporting, processing or refining, transported again, and then burnt for fuel to make electricity is a long process. I would say that this process is both energy and structurally much more expensive. Besides the sun will always shine and fossil fuels will never last. Actually oil and coal are wonderful things. It is a shame that we just burn the stuff.

@@chrisconklin2981 The entire process of manufacturing, transporting, installing, maintaining, storing, disposing of or recycling both solar panels and wind turbines involves fossil fuels to a large extent. These are very energy-consuming processes. I have not seen a single study that shows savings compared to fossil fuels in transport by more than 1.5 times and in the electricity sector by more than 2 times. Only heat pumps or pellets/biogas from waste have high energy cost reduction coefficients. Until other more sustainable and stable types of renewable energy (hydro, geothermal, biofuels of all types, hydrogen or ammonia, alcohol from renewable sources...) rise to the same position in terms of electricity generation per year, filling a significant part of the described chain - You can’t talk about “free” energy, “zero” emissions or at least some kind of long-term stability of the energy system.

Don't you hate it when otherwise intelligent people say that word wrong. Drive me crazy.

actually both pronunciations are acceptable

The main reason that nuclear is so expensive are the regulations.

@@JvsSanders I wonder why all of those regulations are necessary? Could be be all of those contractors cutting corners.

In fact only Russia built new SMR reactors with HALEU fuel and only China built SMR reseach rector of 4th generation with mixed fuel. Only Russia has new contract to build new SMR nuclear power station in Uzbekistan (6 SMRs, each have 55 MW of electric and 200 MW of thermal power). Only Russia and France have abilities to produce enough HALEU fuel for SMRs. All other "SMR" projects are re-developed old projects of "medium" modular reactors with power from 300 to 600 MW and usual nuclear fuel (5% enrichment). You must include costs of new electricity lines to another time zones + regulated substations + balancing and stabilisation + "cold" backup (like fossil fuel power plants or hydroelecric plants), when you talk something like "solar and wind + battery storage". Existing electricity lines and substations (without regulation of power and direction of energy transfer) cannot use all the energy from renewable energy sources, so losses can reach up to 30%. Lithium batteries (even with hot standby mode of 20-80% capacity) require complete replacement of batteries every 10-12 years and repacking (partial replacement of blocks with high internal resistance) every 3-4 years. In most countries of the world (with the rare exception of Australia), the duration of periods of calm and lack of sun ranges from 14 to 30 days, the duration of a 50% reduction in output power is 3-4 times higher. Wind and solar can supplement base generation at a level of up to 1/3 of annual output. Anything above this threshold significantly increases the cost of solar and wind energy, to the level of current tariffs in Germany and Denmark (24-32 euro cents per kWh for end consumers or 16-24 euro cents per kWh for the wholesale market)

Already is... so there!

@@stickynorth What is really happening is the wind and solar power are being deployed at a greater rate than all others.

@@chrisconklin2981 China leads in controlling all renewable energy chains (solar, wind, lithium and sodium batteries, electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, compressed gas stations, major hydroelectric power plants, pumped storage power plants, rare earth metals, strong magnets)