Nuclear News Hubb
Advertisement
  • Home
  • News
  • Nuclear Power
  • Contact us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
  • Nuclear Power
  • Contact us
No Result
View All Result
Nuclear News Hubb
No Result
View All Result
Home News

Rethink Research throws cold water on the Nuclear Energy Institute’s enthusiasm for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

admin by admin
August 25, 2022
in News


For SMRs to remain competitive there will need to be heavy state-side subsidizes for consumers, as the initial cost of energy produced from them is considerably above wholesale auction prices.

https://rethinkresearch.biz/articles/smr-boon-forecast-by-nei-rethink-doubts-it/—SMR boon forecast by NEI, Rethink doubts it, By Connor Watts, 24 Aug 22, Some 19 utilities surveyed by the US Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) says they see potential for up to 90GW of small modular reactors (SMR) within the United States by 2050. This would work out to around 300 reactors producing 731.3 TWh of energy, most of which would come online before 2050. Those numbers look pretty good until you look at current generation figures

During 2021 the US consumed around 790 TWh of electricity from nuclear power plants and 899 TWh from coal plants. The EIA projects that 16GW of nuclear plants will be decommissioned, alongside 69GW of coal plants up to 2050. This means that as much as 95% of potential SMR energy production could be going directly to the replacement of existing facilities.

This leaves only 5GW of remaining demand potential for SMR energy production up to 2050 outside of decommissioning existing facilities, we think even this may be optimistic.

Traditional nuclear plants take upwards of a decade to build and often run massively overbudget, making the energy it does produce once built more expensive as costs are attempted to be recouped.

SMR producers promise to do away with these drawbacks through standardizing their designs to enable factory production. Minimizing cost while shortening production times, theoretically addressing the main weaknesses of traditional reactors.

In practice it’s a little more complicated.

Considering the complexity and risks involved with nuclear power generation, commercial production and design of SMRs remains a slow and meticulous process. This has left many SMR sites still in the planning or design phase years after their announcements, almost competing in deployment time with traditional nuclear plants.

Once a new SMR gets deployed after its design and development period, it will need to be monitored for a few years to inspect for defects and inefficiencies within the design to prevent any mishaps. This is likely to add yet more time to an already long production horizon, adding costs as new units cannot go into production.

The cost savings achieved through modularity and standardization are borne through mass-production and deployment. In a way this is the “gigafactory” approach for nuclear. Considering long initial production times, this will contribute significantly to a short-term increase in the price of nuclear electricity, minimizing its applications where it remains competitive.

SMRs are supposed to come to market at $60 per MWh LCOE – but already wind and solar are considerably below that, and what level will they be at after SMRs arrived on the scene in volume, by say 2030?

For SMRs to remain competitive there will need to be heavy state-side subsidizes for consumers, as the initial cost of energy produced from them is considerably above wholesale auction prices.

Another issue with nuclear power generation is water usage. Earlier this month nuclear plants in France had a rule concerning water discharging waived as heatwaves boiled most of Europe.

Typically, the reactors would reduce their output to minimize damage from discharging hot water into the nearby ecosystems, but this rule has been waived until the 11th of September to ensure energy supplies in the short term. SMRs will also need to use local water supplies as a coolant, which makes them ineffective in a drought.

This can be mitigated through the use of alternative coolants such as liquid metal, gas and molten salt, but many SMR designs currently work similarly to traditional nuclear.

To use the time horizon for SMRs makes them look economically unfavorable, and while these 19 utilities may genuinely feel they like the idea of more nuclear, their controlling state utilities commission may well have something to say about whether they ever actually get installed.



Source link

Previous Post

NATO Abandons Diplomacy, Says No Longer ‘At Peace’

Next Post

Astronauts Going to Mars Will Receive Many Lifetimes Worth of Radiation

Next Post

Astronauts Going to Mars Will Receive Many Lifetimes Worth of Radiation

Recommended

Documents show no sign Australia’s Albanese government lobbied the US to bring Julian Assange home « nuclear-news

January 28, 2023

Minnesota: Will This Be the Year for a 100-Percent Carbon-Free Electricity Policy?

February 13, 2023

Don't miss it

News

Lawmakers Cherry-pick Outdated EPA Data in Effort to Undermine Environmental Justice Grant Programs

April 1, 2023
Nuclear Power

Belarus, Echoing Russia, Raises Prospect of Nuclear Conflict

April 1, 2023
News

Nuclear dispute hangs over EU renewable energy talks « nuclear-news

April 1, 2023
News

Sustainable Groundwater Management Is a David and Goliath Story

March 31, 2023
News

TODAY. “Clean” “Renewable” nuclear power – the PERSISTENT LIES « nuclear-news

March 31, 2023
News

What International Climate Justice Means for Sri Lanka

March 30, 2023

© Nuclear News Hubb All rights reserved.

Use of these names, logos, and brands does not imply endorsement unless specified. By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.

Navigate Site

  • Home
  • News
  • Nuclear Power
  • Contact us

Newsletter Sign Up

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
  • Nuclear Power
  • Contact us

© 2022 Nuclear News Hubb All rights reserved.