Three Ways Small Modular Reactors Overcome Existing Barriers to Nuclear

[Ksheed]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/three-ways-small-modular-reactors-overcome-existing-barriers-to-nuclear/

[Marlin]

Still a light water reactor I wish there was more emphasis on liquid metal.

[Rennhack]

Hmmm... The LARGE dual and triple units are staying open, and the smaller single units are closing... yet someone thinks its a good ideal to spend my tax dollars on small reactor designs?

How about we make 3x 1500 Mw units more common.

[Marlin]

Hmmm... The LARGE dual and triple units are staying open, and the smaller single units are closing... yet someone thinks its a good ideal to spend my tax dollars on small reactor designs?

How about we make 3x 1500 Mw units more common.

I think the article explains that pretty well. Note that the only utility building is a regulated one. I don't disagree that the size of older reactors is a reason for surviving but new ones need new applications that fit into the new grid and demand. Regulators hinder both but the new modulars can be done with realistic regulation that is being pushed right now. Well, that might depend on the next election.


"With today's competitive electricity markets, generators must compete to provide power exactly where and when it is needed at the lowest price. This fact makes it harder to predict what price a nuclear power plant will be paid for its electricity, and thereby makes it more difficult to justify a long-term investment in nuclear versus something like natural gas or renewable energy. It's not a coincidence that the only new nuclear generating units under construction in the United States are owned by Southern Company, a regulated utility."

[Rennhack]

They miss the whole economic reason nuclear isn't viable, and they made a 'solution' that is even worse.

The real reason nuclear isn't viable is the 150 security guards, and the 120 engineers, and the 200 admin people EVERY site needs.  And the Fukushima mods, and the 911 mods....

Making smaller reactors doesn't mean they cost less to operate.  It isn't building them that is the issue.  It's operating them.

We are closing 'small' plants that are fully paid for, just because the overhead of operating ONE SMALL unit is cost prohibitive.

[Marlin]

They miss the whole economic reason nuclear isn't viable, and they made a 'solution' that is even worse.

The real reason nuclear isn't viable is the 150 security guards, and the 120 engineers, and the 200 admin people EVERY site needs.  And the Fukushima mods, and the 911 mods....

That is assuming they will have the same regulations. These are not traditional light water reactors.

Making smaller reactors doesn't mean they cost less to operate.  It isn't building them that is the issue.  It's operating them.

We are closing 'small' plants that are fully paid for, just because the overhead of operating ONE SMALL unit is cost prohibitive.

They are closing small dinosaurs. SMR's are not just smaller reactors they are new designs.

[Ksheed]

That is assuming they will have the same regulations. These are not traditional light water reactors.

They are closing small dinosaurs. SMR's are not just smaller reactors they are new designs.

Rennhack's point is dead on, and your rebuttal doesn't address it.

The real reason nuclear isn't viable is the 150 security guards, and the 120 engineers, and the 200 admin people EVERY site needs.  And the Fukushima mods, and the 911 mods....

While I think these new designs are great, it doesn't solve the lack of cost competitiveness. The bottom line is the overhead of a nuke is way to high due to many reasons including the ones Rennhack listed. NEI is pushing for a 30% reduction in cost throughout the industry. 
http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Communication-Tools/Delivering%20the%20Nuclear%20Promise/Strategic-Plan_DNP_031016.pdf?ext=.pdf
http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/us-utilities-must-commit-digitization-cut-operating-costs-30
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuclear-industry-targets-30-cost-reduction-by-2018-to-remain-competitive/410592/
http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Policy/Wall%20Street/WallStreetBriefing2015slides.pdf?ext=.pdf
http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Policy/Wall%20Street/WallStreetBriefing2016Slides.pdf?ext=.pdf


The current plants have two paths.
1. Reduce costs across the board to remain competitive and keep your plant open.
OR
2. Keep doing it the way we have always done it ("That's the Nuclear Way.") and get shut down.

[Rennhack]

What he said.

[Marlin]

Rennhack's point is dead on, and your rebuttal doesn't address it.

We will have to agree to disagree efforts to modify regulations are underway and the major cost is not running a new plant but building it and paying off the interest. Delays and regulations are what made the cost of the old plants so expensive.

While I think these new designs are great, it doesn't solve the lack of cost competitiveness. The bottom line is the overhead of a nuke is way to high due to many reasons including the ones Rennhack listed. NEI is pushing for a 30% reduction in cost throughout the industry. 
http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Communication-Tools/Delivering%20the%20Nuclear%20Promise/Strategic-Plan_DNP_031016.pdf?ext=.pdf
http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/us-utilities-must-commit-digitization-cut-operating-costs-30
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuclear-industry-targets-30-cost-reduction-by-2018-to-remain-competitive/410592/
http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Policy/Wall%20Street/WallStreetBriefing2015slides.pdf?ext=.pdf
http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Policy/Wall%20Street/WallStreetBriefing2016Slides.pdf?ext=.pdf

These articles all deal with existing plants (the dinosaurs) not newer advanced SMRs so I think we can discuss that a bit more the original article talks about these costs.

The current plants have two paths.
1. Reduce costs across the board to remain competitive and keep your plant open.
OR
2. Keep doing it the way we have always done it ("That's the Nuclear Way.") and get shut down.

Again the article does not deal with current plants conventional wisdom is not applicable here.

[Rennhack]

We will have to agree to disagree efforts to modify regulations are underway and the major cost is not running a new plant but building it and paying off the interest. Delays and regulations are what made the cost of the old plants so expensive.

These articles all deal with existing plants (the dinosaurs) not newer advanced SMRs so I think we can discuss that a bit more the original article talks about these costs.

Again the article does not deal with current plants conventional wisdom is not applicable here.

I love you Marlin, but you are wrong. 

They will always need to secure the plants.  The security cost will never change, no matter the size.
They will always have administrative burden, no matter the design basis.

The laws don't care if you split atoms with a 1950's design, or a 2015 design.  The terrorists don't care, the NIMBY's don't care...

And I promise, the guys fracking the natural gas don't care.

Again, plants that are running at 99% capacity factor, and are paid off... are closing.  Nothing about building a new one cheaper is better than one already build and paid for.  They are closing plants that are operating just fine, and are paid for.

CLOSING them.

CLOSING.

They are already paid for.

As in NO COST... FREE. -- All that is needed is a few security guards, a couple of maintenance guys, a few operators, and a small administrative overhead.  99% capacity factor.

CLOSING them.

CLOSING.

Natural gas is cheaper.


To quote Rerun/Broadzilla "It will never happen" outside of a lobbyist hobby.  No deregulated USA SMRs will be build.

The problem isn't the cost to build them.  If that were the issue, we wouldn't have just shut down 6 plants that are already paid for, and operating just fine.

[Marlin]

I love you Marlin, but you are wrong. 

They will always need to secure the plants.  The security cost will never change, no matter the size.
They will always have administrative burden, no matter the design basis.

The laws don't care if you split atoms with a 1950's design, or a 2015 design.  The terrorists don't care, the NIMBY's don't care...

And I promise, the guys fracking the natural gas don't care.

Again, plants that are running at 99% capacity factor, and are paid off... are closing.  Nothing about building a new one cheaper is better than one already build and paid for.  They are closing plants that are operating just fine, and are paid for.

CLOSING them.

CLOSING.

They are already paid for.

As in NO COST... FREE. -- All that is needed is a few security guards, a couple of maintenance guys, a few operators, and a small administrative overhead.  99% capacity factor.

CLOSING them.

CLOSING.

Natural gas is cheaper.


To quote Rerun/Broadzilla "It will never happen" outside of a lobbyist hobby.  No deregulated USA SMRs will be build.

The problem isn't the cost to build them.  If that were the issue, we wouldn't have just shut down 6 plants that are already paid for, and operating just fine.

You are still comparing what use to be to what can be. Your metrics are based on the dinosaurs. Time to set the buggy whips aside and drive the model T.

[Marlin]

Let me line out a few things.






TVA scraps old plant and applies for modular reactor siting license. These are the people who really know what the facts are.


Modulars are natural convection and use passive safety systems. i.e. far less required equipment and associated regulation.


Modulars are self contained units installed below ground.


Modular reactors installed in the facility much like installing a new steam generator but designed to do so.


Modulars are not intended to be a base load like traditional reactors. One can be taken off line for days or months as load varies and can power down much quicker.


Less equipment, small foot print, and below ground installation lessen the need for security.


The small size even makes them a possible power source for industry.


The safety systems can be backed up by battery no diesel backup.




I'm just say'n   

[Rennhack]

TVA scraps old plant and applies for modular reactor siting license. These are the people who really know what the facts are.

I hope your straw man doesn't catch fire.

far less required equipment and associated regulation.

There is no correlation between less equipment = less regulation.  Less equipment MAY = faster licensing process, but again, I state that that isn't the issue keeping nuclear down.  It's mostly self imposed administrative burden, coupled with FLEX, SOCA and other BDB mods, as well as additional security.

Less equipment, small foot print, and below ground installation lessen the need for security.

I don't see how below ground or above ground matters when it comes to security.  It's not like we are afraid the bad men will pick it up and fly it away.

The small size even makes them a possible power source for industry.

What are you smoking?  'Industry' in the USA would still need to follow all of the regulation, operations, maintenance, security and other administrative burden that is killing the industry.

I genuinely care a great deal for you my friend, but if you believe a fraction of what you are selling.... I am concerned for you.  What you are saying is so far from reality.

What I WOULD agree with is this:  WHEN gas prices rise, and the cost of energy rises, this may be a valid alternative design for the next generation of nuclear power.  BUT they would need to slam enough of these together to make ~4,000 Mwe to make it cost effective.

AND current INPO cost reduction methods would have to pan out.  INPO over corrected, and needs to 'right' the boat.



(Side note: I love how in the new WYSIWYG interface when you add an emoji, you SEE the emoji, and not just the code for it.)

[Marlin]

I hope your straw man doesn't catch fire.

Just following the news and those who probably know better than us.

There is no correlation between less equipment = less regulation.  Less equipment MAY = faster licensing process, but again, I state that that isn't the issue keeping nuclear down.  It's mostly self imposed administrative burden, coupled with FLEX, SOCA and other BDB mods, as well as additional security.

Really!! Regulations on equipment not installed is still enforced? Not to mention the effort to change the regulations. Reduced seismic risk and a design that is not backfitting safety systems into a plant not initially designed for it.

I don't see how below ground or above ground matters when it comes to security.  It's not like we are afraid the bad men will pick it up and fly it away.

Safety analysis, containment in an accident scenario, and security. It's been in many of the articles and white papers on modulars.

IWhat are you smoking?  'Industry' in the USA would still need to follow all of the regulation, operations, maintenance, security and other administrative burden that is killing the industry.

That's kind of the point the design makes them easier to operate, significantly less maintenance as there is far less equipment to maintain with a smaller staff.

I genuinely care a great deal for you my friend, but if you believe a fraction of what you are selling.... I am concerned for you.  What you are saying is so far from reality.

What I WOULD agree with is this:  WHEN gas prices rise, and the cost of energy rises, this may be a valid alternative design for the next generation of nuclear power.  BUT they would need to slam enough of these together to make ~4,000 Mwe to make it cost effective.

AND current INPO cost reduction methods would have to pan out.  INPO over corrected, and needs to 'right' the boat.



(Side note: I love how in the new WYSIWYG interface when you add an emoji, you SEE the emoji, and not just the code for it.)

I think like PolySci we have a fundamental difference in point of view in this case instead of NeoCon and PaleoCon we are NeoNuclear and PaleoNuclear. Cost analysis, regulatory environment, and transition to a new paradigm for future operation have been the subject of many white papers and articles the authors do not share your view on the potential for SMRs




I meant to do a search for more emoji's for the site but I have been very busy on several projects. Next week is not looking good either but I will try to at least start.

[OldHP]

Mike's point, "Overhead" is the reason for the season!

My first visit to a NPP, "1967" IP-1, for a greater NE/NY HPS meeting - security was a person (unarmed in a cubby) who you were to see, called that person and you were in!
Other visits were the same!  My first NPP work was in the early 70's, security was still the same.  Then came the regulation that security had to be armed and entrance had to be monitored, you and your possessions, as in an airport, i,e., X-Ray!  The space for security drastically increased!

Even in the 80's security had become the largest group at most plants.  Then post 9/11, it grew!

Admin, when I managed at a NPP:  Admin. was maybe 25 to 30, and I'm including dosimetery techs as Admin.!

We, the nuclear industry, went through a small portion of this post TMI when INPO was created and forced major increases in rad-con at most plants!  To comply with INPO, I had to go from one shift tech, to a Supervisor and 4 techs per shift!

What is happening is regulations, Federal, INPO (which aren't really regulations, but are treated as such), and ANSI (which aren't really regulations, but are treated as such)!  And INPO suggestions and ANSI Standards / suggestions are treated by the Feds as part of their regulations!

Add to that post Japan requirements, and you have a reason to go gas and coal!

[Marlin]

Mike's point, "Overhead" is the reason for the season!

My first visit to a NPP, "1967" IP-1, for a greater NE/NY HPS meeting - security was a person (unarmed in a cubby) who you were to see, called that person and you were in!
Other visits were the same!  My first NPP work was in the early 70's, security was still the same.  Then came the regulation that security had to be armed and entrance had to be monitored, you and your possessions, as in an airport, i,e., X-Ray!  The space for security drastically increased!

Even in the 80's security had become the largest group at most plants.  Then post 9/11, it grew!

Admin, when I managed at a NPP:  Admin. was maybe 25 to 30, and I'm including dosimetery techs as Admin.!

We, the nuclear industry, went through a small portion of this post TMI when INPO was created and forced major increases in rad-con at most plants!  To comply with INPO, I had to go from one shift tech, to a Supervisor and 4 techs per shift!

What is happening is regulations, Federal, INPO (which aren't really regulations, but are treated as such), and ANSI (which aren't really regulations, but are treated as such)!  And INPO suggestions and ANSI Standards / suggestions are treated by the Feds as part of their regulations!

Add to that post Japan requirements, and you have a reason to go gas and coal!

   I do get Mike's point and that of any PaleoNuke, but does that apply to new designs? There have been a lot of articles posted on Nukeworker over the last few years about SMR's and even a few white papers on economy of construction and operation. Does conventional wisdom for power plants designed in the 1960s apply to plants designed in the 21st century? I don't think so nor do the authors of all those articles and white papers. I tend to side with the engineers who see the possibilities of advanced reactors and I don't mean the ones who follow the CW of the 1960s and are offering new large traditional light water reactors. Some of the SMRs have been described as walk aways due to passive safety systems. Simplified design removes much of the argument that I have seen on this thread even with gas prices and regulation which can be changed. With the Climate Change Alarmists seeing nuclear as part of the solution as solar and wind will eventually lose the large subsides there will be (is) pressure on the Fed to modify regulations for SMRs who operate much differently than our aging nuclear fleet. The non-government quasi-regulator camp followers I believe will see the writing on the wall and move to preserve their relevance. Even if they do not compete in some markets not all locations benefit from the gas prices in isolated areas and it would make nuclear possible for large industrial complexes that wish to isolate themselves from market fluctuation, note that the SMRs intended for Tennessee would be there primarily for the Oak Ridge Reservation for Y-12 the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Oak Ridge National Laboratories. Oak Ridge may be government but I can see some potential mega factories that will be built could use one as well as their CEOs are promoting the SMRs as well.

I doubt I will change my mind so clearly we will have agree to disagree.

"That's just my opinion, I could be wrong." Dennis Miller   

But in this case I prefer:
"That's my opinion feel free to make it yours." Phil Williams   






P.S. I don't want Friends or cooworkers I agree with all the time that would be boring and I would be concerned that I have shut down any critical thinking skills. That is part of the reason I miss HydroDave, we dove into the minutia at times even when we agreed 95%. I miss Dave on Nukeworker he understood discussion was about what was right not who was right.

[GLW]

....I tend to side with the engineers who see the possibilities of advanced reactors and I don't mean the ones who follow the CW of the 1960s and are offering new large traditional light water reactors.....

we do not elect engineers to Congress or the Presidency, we elect lawyers or community activists ( for the most part),....

soccer moms support NIMBYs before they support "energy independence", soccer moms conceptualize energy as a PFM flip the switch, turn the dial, fill the tank proposition, getting that energy to the switch, dial and tank at a price they want is someone else's problem just so long as soccer moms get what they want in an "earth friendly" process that makes them feel good about themselves while consuming that energy (again, for the most part),...

the problem is not light water reactors:

Large-scale Chinese reactor design passes IAEA safety review

https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,40994.msg193900/topicseen.html#new

...The CAP1400 is an enlarged version of the AP1000 pressurized water reactor developed from the Westinghouse original by SNPTC with consulting input from the Toshiba-owned company. As one of China's 16 strategic projects under its National Science and Technology Development Plan, the CAP1400 is intended to be deployed in large numbers across the country. The reactor design may also be exported....

there are still folks in the US of A who absolutely understand that the labor saving and servitude liquidating standard of American living is precisely because of abundant and affordable energy,...

most of these folks live east of the Pecos and south of the Mason Dixon line,...

they elect lawyers who see things as they do,...

elsewhere?!?!?!?

not so much as nukeworkers see things,...

[Marlin]

we do not elect engineers to Congress or the Presidency, we elect lawyers or community activists ( for the most part),....

Agree and I think I included community activism in my response. I do think Lawyers morph when elected. We do have doctors, Veterans and political activists in Congress as well. But ambitious DAs are well represented.

soccer moms support NIMBYs before they support "energy independence", soccer moms conceptualize energy as a PFM flip the switch, turn the dial, fill the tank proposition, getting that energy to the switch, dial and tank at a price they want is someone else's problem just so long as soccer moms get what they want in an "earth friendly" process that makes them feel good about themselves while consuming that energy (again, for the most part),...

Misogynist    I guess you don't think there are any free thinking women. 

the problem is not light water reactors:

OK the SMRs under consideration are light water reactors, liquid metal would be preferable in my opinion but it is the main design under consideration.

there are still folks in the US of A who absolutely understand that the labor saving and servitude liquidating standard of American living is precisely because of abundant and affordable energy,...

most of these folks live east of the Pecos and south of the Mason Dixon line,...

they elect lawyers who see things as they do,...

elsewhere?!?!?!?

not so much as nukeworkers see things,...

Brings us back to cost and no they will not be built if they are not believed to be cost effective. The cost of gas will increase as coal is taken off line and the rule of supply and demand will take over making gas more expensive. We are looking at a decade or two prior to the first modular if built. Again we are NeoNuclear vs PaleoNuclear.