ADVERTISEMENT

US approves NuScale SMR (small modular nuclear reactors)

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
145,952
156,194
113
The U.S. nuclear power regulator has certified the design for the NuScale Power Corp's (SMR.N) small modular reactor, the first such approval in the country for the next generation technology.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's approval, published in the Federal Register late on Thursday, clears a hurdle for NuScale. The company plans to build a demonstration small modular reactor (SMR) power plant at the Idaho National Laboratory. NuScale says the six-reactor, 462 megawatt Carbon Free Power Project will be fully running in 2030.


There are significant questions about rising costs of the demonstration plant, expected to provide electricity to the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS). NuScale said this month the target price for power from the plant is $89 per megawatt hour, up 53% from the previous estimate of $58 per MWh.



(segment transcript at link)

Per the SciFri link:

In terms of the waste that’s produced, we’re talking about very small quantities of used fuel. For our design, for example– the one that we’re building in Idaho– that’s a six-module plant. For 60 years of operation with that plant, all the used fuel that’s generated could be stored on 0.8 acres of land. So it’s a very small amount of waste that’s being generated from these plants. And that’s over a very long period of time. And the storage is on a very small footprint.


EDIT: FTR - a six module plant would generate about 462 MW, and the 0.8 acre storage referred to 6 decades of operation. Each module generates 77 MW. They also go into detail on how the individual modules shut off safely w/o any power or cooling, and excess heat generated when power is not needed on the grid could be used for water desalination or hydrogen production/biofuel generation.

They mention that lots of energy companies with older coal/natural gas fired plants due for retirement are looking closely at these modules as an option to supplement renewables generation and close the production-gaps when the wind doesn't blow or at night.

The Sci-Fri podcast on this is a pretty good listen.
 
Last edited:
I heard that there is a new movement to try and replace the heat generating parts of coal power plants with nuclear reactors to lower the cost of building them. The idea being that much of the expense of building new power plants comes with buying the things that you need at any power plant regardless of the heat source used to produce steam (things like generators and such). I wonder if these "modular" designs are part of the process of being able to do that.
 
I heard that there is a new movement to try and replace the heat generating parts of coal power plants with nuclear reactors to lower the cost of building them. The idea being that much of the expense of building new power plants comes with buying the things that you need at any power plant regardless of the heat source used to produce steam (things like generators and such). I wonder if these "modular" designs are part of the process of being able to do that.

That was one of the advantages of these modules: you can build/modify the existing plant for them WHILE you are having the modules built at the factory. Drops the timeframe from something like 5 yrs to <3 yrs, because you deliver the modules when you're ready for them.

Modules were something like 15 ft diameter cylinders that are 50 or 60 ft long.
 
...that 6-module setup (Idaho build) at 462 MW is nearly enough to provide power for 500,000 homes (1 MW capacity is something like 900-1000 homes).

So, <1000 of those 6 module setups could probably provide power to most of America, along with renewables, maybe as few as 200-300 of them. And they function on such a small footprint, then can be built about anywhere. We won't need this type of nuclear for that long....maybe 50-100 years, until energy storage systems (batteries) develop that we can get most of our energy from renewables, or if fusion becomes a reality. But this could completely wean us off the fossil fuels within a decade or two, and get us to a completely carbon-neutral energy economy.

If we prioritize it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC Nole OX
How well does the .8 acres of waste containment hold up in a chaotic war zone?
 
hello
20211113_CND001_0.jpg
 
I guess I think assuming tens of thousands of years of geopolitical stability seems a bit optimistic. I think any big initiatives of this nature should be planned with a dead man’s switch, so to speak.
 
The U.S. nuclear power regulator has certified the design for the NuScale Power Corp's (SMR.N) small modular reactor, the first such approval in the country for the next generation technology.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's approval, published in the Federal Register late on Thursday, clears a hurdle for NuScale. The company plans to build a demonstration small modular reactor (SMR) power plant at the Idaho National Laboratory. NuScale says the six-reactor, 462 megawatt Carbon Free Power Project will be fully running in 2030.


There are significant questions about rising costs of the demonstration plant, expected to provide electricity to the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS). NuScale said this month the target price for power from the plant is $89 per megawatt hour, up 53% from the previous estimate of $58 per MWh.



(segment transcript at link)

Per the SciFri link:

In terms of the waste that’s produced, we’re talking about very small quantities of used fuel. For our design, for example– the one that we’re building in Idaho– that’s a six-module plant. For 60 years of operation with that plant, all the used fuel that’s generated could be stored on 0.8 acres of land. So it’s a very small amount of waste that’s being generated from these plants. And that’s over a very long period of time. And the storage is on a very small footprint.


EDIT: FTR - a six module plant would generate about 462 MW, and the 0.8 acre storage referred to 6 decades of operation. Each module generates 77 MW. They also go into detail on how the individual modules shut off safely w/o any power or cooling, and excess heat generated when power is not needed on the grid could be used for water desalination or hydrogen production/biofuel generation.

They mention that lots of energy companies with older coal/natural gas fired plants due for retirement are looking closely at these modules as an option to supplement renewables generation and close the production-gaps when the wind doesn't blow or at night.

The Sci-Fri podcast on this is a pretty good listen.
Sounds pretty dang woke to me. Like, maybe we are “woking up” to new possibilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
Maybe I’m misunderstanding something but this is tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years of liability for 60 years of benefit, I believe.
That is always my concern about nukes, but at least the volume of waste appears to be dramatically less in this newer system.
 
Maybe I’m misunderstanding something but this is tens (hundreds?) of thousands of years of liability for 60 years of benefit, I believe.
It's that or irreversible climate change that devastates our coasts and has massive impacts on our agricultural areas.
 
That is always my concern about nukes, but at least the volume of waste appears to be dramatically less in this newer system.
These are not a "permanent" fix; they are a bridge to other renewables coming online and fusion reactors that could be 50 years or so out.
 
Just spitballing here, but why not rocket the waste into the vastness of space?

With today's rockets - way too expensive & risky.

But with a giant rail-gun, you might be able to shoot stuff off the planet...


#ThanksObama!!!???
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT