These new generation of nuclear fission reactors (SMRs) under study are more reliable and flexible than the classical large nuclear plants. They should present much less risk of accidents than the large one. They are also useful in remote locations.
As you write correctly, SMRs are still under study. Which means that reliabilty , flexibility and safety are part of the concept but have not been proven yet. If have my doubts about the possibilty of a rapid success. Wikipedia lists >30 different types of SMRs which signals that there will be a lot of competition before only several big players could evolve. But this is a prerequisite because SMRs make economically sense only when a high number of units can be produced.
I would love to base my answer strictly on the safety parameters involved. Any new innovation to the failsafe mode? Are they Fast reactors? Do we need to worry about used fuels?
According to IAEA there are about 50 SMR designs and concepts globally. Most of them are in various developmental stages and some are claimed as being near-term deployable. There are currently four SMRs in advanced stages of construction in Argentina, China and Russia, and several existing and newcomer nuclear energy countries are conducting SMR research and development.
The SMR is expected to cost less to build, but it loses out on economies of scale. Larger reactors are cheaper on a per megawatt basis because their material and work requirements do not scale linearly with generation capacity.
A nuclear power plant using SMRs will have costs that are higher than the costs of a similar plant using a single larger reactor. The economies of scale apply to many components such as staffing, nuclear regulatory approvals, sitting and construction.
The safety, economy of scale, waste, and reliability arguments are circular. The keys to the circularity are current regulation and vendors. The regulation is out of control and Byzantine, which requires vendors with massive administrative and engineering facilities.
The current nuclear energy system is not sustainable because it cannot pay for itself. It is subsidized by governments.
SMRs and good waste policy are the solution.
@Joseph
Some arguments might be circular. And of course, regulation is complicated but it has its roots in experiences. SMRs/good waste policy might be an option... but in reality, such thing as a life-time core of an SMR will give the administrative/regulatory body the occasion to leave waste policy to future generations [again]. I got very pessimistic on such questions.
Erik
Regulation does have its roots in experience, indeed. The knowledge base extends to the Manhattan Project where detailed and extensive information was developed. It is unfortunate that much of that information is not reflected in current regulations. Many practices developed during Manhattan were specific to reactors and circumstances related to nuclear bomb production and continue to this day despite their limited applicability. Regulation has become a bureaucratic morass requiring a bureaucratic response that only large administrative concerns can supply.
The prevalence of light water reactors is a result of a political decision and was in no way an engineering decision. The waste management for LWRs was based on reprocessing developed during Manhattan. Disposal of the waste was simple and secure. Enter politics and away goes simple and secure. AND, let's write more regulations.
LWRs have delivered clean, reliable energy, in spite, of not being the best choice. This shows that nuclear is an option.
Many SMR concepts include processing of wastes different from the Manhattan solution. Waste disposal or reuse is potentially simple and cost effective. Politics will likely ensure that this never happens.
Yes. I too am pessimistic, especially when the economy-of-scale argument is the first one out of the gate. There are LWR sites with three LWRs operating. Why not have 20 or 30 SMRs?
SMR are not cheaper MW to MW than large systems. Their cost advantage comes from factory built units that be constructed quickly thus reducing the time that loans have to serviced. But here is the problem. Setting up factories is expensive and so the cost advantage can only be amortised if the number of plants built is large - larger than the UK can utilise - so expprts are necessary. and it is difficult to see the possibilities here. I agree something must be done but I am not sure we can see a future for SMR without some international agreement on the design. Novel designs and fuels only exacerbate the economic problems, however, if nuclear id to have a long term future we need breeder reactors - but then the economics come in again because the costs of reprocessing and removing the plutonium and manufacturing MOX fuel have to be considered. Remember also the arguments about the plutonium economy which culminated in the cancellation of fast breeder work in the US.. Its not the technology that is the problem, its politics and economics.
Small (or modular) reactors have following advantages: they are optimal for remote locations (such as ones built in Egypt, Jordan, Australia); they have small construction cost and are some how easier to build than a NPP > 700 MW.
SMR are neither good or bad, they have been thought for a determined constellation (mainly, as I mentioned, for remote locations). Using them under other conditions could be better or worst than a NPP > 700 MW. On the economical aspect, one should have clear that the MW-cost is bigger for a SMR than for a classical NPP.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts