This is very aligned with a similar investigation I did a few months / years back on SMRs for the Department of Defense. Our two analyses go hand in hand.
You shouldn't mix SMRs with micro reactors. Mainstream nuclear is around 1-2.5 GW. SMRs are around 300-500 MW. SMRs are still large construction projects.
Micro reactors ala Radiant are aiming for 1-6 MW (about the size of large diesel generators). These are the ones that can be mass manufacturable and transportable via shipping containers. These will the decentralised nuclear future - not SMRs.
I personally don't support large nuclear including SMRs because nuclear is not possible without big government or corporatism. Nuclear takes like 5-9 years to build and 30 years to pay off your construction costs. Even if you take away cost overrun risk no bank in the world is going to finance that without government support.
In contrast solar and batteries are a libertarian's wet dream. I might have to support some government subsidies in the short run but I'm investing in the freedom of future generations.
I start every comment on nuclear noting that my copy of "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear" is now 50 years old and well-worn. I've been championing since my teens, since TMI.
But.
Fervo Energy in California has shown that they can not only pull geothermal power out of the ground, they can *store* energy with geothermal, pumping in pressure from solar-run pumps by day. Get more energy back than they put in, because the water gets heated!
What's changed in the business is the expertise in fracking, developed for oil and gas, now hands drillers the power to do better, cheaper geothermal.
If that scales; if the "closed loop" geothermal plant by Eavor, now going up in Germany, works at a good price; then nuclear is going to have a hell of a time competing with ever-cheaper solar made clean-firm by pairing with geothermal.
Anybody investing in nuclear today, is making a bet that the above will prove a crushing disappointment. I would be timid to bet against geothermal.
It is not the cost of a particular generating system that rules out renewables as viable source of net zero power, it is the fact that you need to build two (or more) systems to do one job.
The bulk of the costs are in the return of capital for construction.
Whether it is solar with nuclear or solar with geothermal, the system that complements solar has to be designed to provide 100% of the peak load when the sun isn't shining. Designing a nuclear plant or a geothermal system to only operate when the sun isn't shining doesn't make any sense. In both cases the solar is redundant.
You’re forgetting the original renewable, hydro, which does not have to provide 7×24. Site C in BC, for instance, has a 50% capacity factor: it can put out 1.2GW, but only for about 4500 hours of the 8765 hours in a year; half the time it lets water back up behind the dam.
Paired with 2GW of solar and wind that had a 30% capacity factor, the group could provide 1.2GW the whole year ‘round.
Dams that now run 7×24 could have their generating capacity increased so that they can produce more, for fewer hours, and become part of renewable pairing.
This was the main multi-GW storage option, short of batteries dropping another 80% in price (which is not a crazy dream). But my original post stressed that geothermal is now offering not just a generation option but a storage capability, perhaps a very large, cheap one. CONTINGENT on that being true, the main argument for nuclear just took a huge hit.
You're assuming the abundance of natural resources that is available to the US/Canada is available to everyone. That isn't true. Imagine living in a dense city with limited water resources not in a coastal town...
I'm mostly concerned with Canada, as my voice has little chance of affecting other's choices.
As a 3rd-gen Albertan who retired to BC, it seems blindingly obvious to me that two provinces with 95% Hydro are on either side of two prairie provinces with jack-squat except gas, creating opportunity.
Fill all four provinces with all the wind and solar that are in good locations (and BC can do offshore - actually, so can MB out in Hudson's Bay...), put in major conductors to funnel hydropower inward during the darker months and calmer days. All four provinces could go carbon free; it's technically and economically possible, but it would take a four-province plan.
Back to nuclear, I'm with David Roberts: wary of new builds, (let China go first, they are), but keep every existing nuclear site (not on a fault line) running until fusion takes over, even if that is centuries. The sites are already sacrificed, make it pay.
Ontario is about carbon-free because of nuclear, and hell, I'd expand capacity of them along with population, and sales to others; already-existing, approved sites would be way cheaper.
My 4-province "plan", plus nukes in Ontario, some offshore wind to decarbonize a few Maritimes (along with Quebec hydro), and I think Canada is good-to-go. It's always easy to solve these problems....in a short social media comment. [dusts hands]
One underappreciated advantage of SMRs, or anything mass-produced for that matter, is safety and innovation.
Mass production makes it possible to rapidly innovate and improve. Conceivably, it would allow faster iteration and lead to safer and more reliable reactors more quickly than otherwise would be achieved. It’s something I will eventually visit at Risk & Progress.
I entirely agree with you. I can be a little pedantic with the "both sides" argument and hadn't completed my research in the "cons" of SMRs. I mostly see upsides but like to cover my butt. 🤩
You shouldn't mistake SMRs with micro reactors. SMRs are still large construction projects. Micro reactors are entirely produced and assembled in a factory.
Thanks, Binder for your thought-provoking essay regarding nuclear power. Lazard published LCOE+ which incorporates the cost of energy storage. Here's their June 2024 report: https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf "Nuclear" is mentioned 25 times. Lazard recognizes the need for baseload generation, which is an improvement over previous versions. The substantial cost to firm solar and wind intermittency is shown in a graphic on page 15 of 48. Unfortunately, the power engineering concept of Synchronous grid inertia (SGI) is not mentioned.. For an introduction, please see: https://greennuke.substack.com/p/why-is-grid-inertia-important Nuclear power plants make the biggest contribution to SGI. SGI stabilizes the grid from the random perturbations caused by solar and wind generation (and large loads being added or taken away.)
This is very aligned with a similar investigation I did a few months / years back on SMRs for the Department of Defense. Our two analyses go hand in hand.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/nuclear-meltdown
You shouldn't mix SMRs with micro reactors. Mainstream nuclear is around 1-2.5 GW. SMRs are around 300-500 MW. SMRs are still large construction projects.
Micro reactors ala Radiant are aiming for 1-6 MW (about the size of large diesel generators). These are the ones that can be mass manufacturable and transportable via shipping containers. These will the decentralised nuclear future - not SMRs.
I personally don't support large nuclear including SMRs because nuclear is not possible without big government or corporatism. Nuclear takes like 5-9 years to build and 30 years to pay off your construction costs. Even if you take away cost overrun risk no bank in the world is going to finance that without government support.
In contrast solar and batteries are a libertarian's wet dream. I might have to support some government subsidies in the short run but I'm investing in the freedom of future generations.
I start every comment on nuclear noting that my copy of "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear" is now 50 years old and well-worn. I've been championing since my teens, since TMI.
But.
Fervo Energy in California has shown that they can not only pull geothermal power out of the ground, they can *store* energy with geothermal, pumping in pressure from solar-run pumps by day. Get more energy back than they put in, because the water gets heated!
What's changed in the business is the expertise in fracking, developed for oil and gas, now hands drillers the power to do better, cheaper geothermal.
If that scales; if the "closed loop" geothermal plant by Eavor, now going up in Germany, works at a good price; then nuclear is going to have a hell of a time competing with ever-cheaper solar made clean-firm by pairing with geothermal.
Anybody investing in nuclear today, is making a bet that the above will prove a crushing disappointment. I would be timid to bet against geothermal.
I'm very supportive of geothermal energy. I'm not a one size fits all kind of gal. I also keep a jeen eye on tidal/wave.
It is not the cost of a particular generating system that rules out renewables as viable source of net zero power, it is the fact that you need to build two (or more) systems to do one job.
The bulk of the costs are in the return of capital for construction.
Whether it is solar with nuclear or solar with geothermal, the system that complements solar has to be designed to provide 100% of the peak load when the sun isn't shining. Designing a nuclear plant or a geothermal system to only operate when the sun isn't shining doesn't make any sense. In both cases the solar is redundant.
You’re forgetting the original renewable, hydro, which does not have to provide 7×24. Site C in BC, for instance, has a 50% capacity factor: it can put out 1.2GW, but only for about 4500 hours of the 8765 hours in a year; half the time it lets water back up behind the dam.
Paired with 2GW of solar and wind that had a 30% capacity factor, the group could provide 1.2GW the whole year ‘round.
Dams that now run 7×24 could have their generating capacity increased so that they can produce more, for fewer hours, and become part of renewable pairing.
This was the main multi-GW storage option, short of batteries dropping another 80% in price (which is not a crazy dream). But my original post stressed that geothermal is now offering not just a generation option but a storage capability, perhaps a very large, cheap one. CONTINGENT on that being true, the main argument for nuclear just took a huge hit.
I grew up in BC and have always appreciated our fertile soil, abundant water supply and cheap electricity due to hydropower.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/geothermal/where-geothermal-energy-is-found.php
You're assuming the abundance of natural resources that is available to the US/Canada is available to everyone. That isn't true. Imagine living in a dense city with limited water resources not in a coastal town...
I'm mostly concerned with Canada, as my voice has little chance of affecting other's choices.
As a 3rd-gen Albertan who retired to BC, it seems blindingly obvious to me that two provinces with 95% Hydro are on either side of two prairie provinces with jack-squat except gas, creating opportunity.
Fill all four provinces with all the wind and solar that are in good locations (and BC can do offshore - actually, so can MB out in Hudson's Bay...), put in major conductors to funnel hydropower inward during the darker months and calmer days. All four provinces could go carbon free; it's technically and economically possible, but it would take a four-province plan.
Back to nuclear, I'm with David Roberts: wary of new builds, (let China go first, they are), but keep every existing nuclear site (not on a fault line) running until fusion takes over, even if that is centuries. The sites are already sacrificed, make it pay.
Ontario is about carbon-free because of nuclear, and hell, I'd expand capacity of them along with population, and sales to others; already-existing, approved sites would be way cheaper.
My 4-province "plan", plus nukes in Ontario, some offshore wind to decarbonize a few Maritimes (along with Quebec hydro), and I think Canada is good-to-go. It's always easy to solve these problems....in a short social media comment. [dusts hands]
One underappreciated advantage of SMRs, or anything mass-produced for that matter, is safety and innovation.
Mass production makes it possible to rapidly innovate and improve. Conceivably, it would allow faster iteration and lead to safer and more reliable reactors more quickly than otherwise would be achieved. It’s something I will eventually visit at Risk & Progress.
I entirely agree with you. I can be a little pedantic with the "both sides" argument and hadn't completed my research in the "cons" of SMRs. I mostly see upsides but like to cover my butt. 🤩
You shouldn't mistake SMRs with micro reactors. SMRs are still large construction projects. Micro reactors are entirely produced and assembled in a factory.
Duly noted.
Thanks, Binder for your thought-provoking essay regarding nuclear power. Lazard published LCOE+ which incorporates the cost of energy storage. Here's their June 2024 report: https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf "Nuclear" is mentioned 25 times. Lazard recognizes the need for baseload generation, which is an improvement over previous versions. The substantial cost to firm solar and wind intermittency is shown in a graphic on page 15 of 48. Unfortunately, the power engineering concept of Synchronous grid inertia (SGI) is not mentioned.. For an introduction, please see: https://greennuke.substack.com/p/why-is-grid-inertia-important Nuclear power plants make the biggest contribution to SGI. SGI stabilizes the grid from the random perturbations caused by solar and wind generation (and large loads being added or taken away.)
Thank you for the references. I'll make sure to read up. 🙏