Nuclear Fission and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) News and Discussions

[caltrek]

COP28 and the Nuclear Energy Numbers Racket
by Sharon Squassoni
December 13, 2023

Introduction:

(Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) Nuclear energy made a big splash at the COP28 climate meeting in Dubai with a declaration by 22 countries calling for a tripling of nuclear energy by 2050. It seems like an impressive and urgent call to arms. On closer inspection, however, the numbers don’t work out. Even at best, a shift to invest more heavily in nuclear energy over the next two decades could actually worsen the climate crisis, as cheaper, quicker alternatives are ignored for more expensive, slow-to-deploy nuclear options.

Here’s what the numbers say:

22: That 22 countries signed the declaration may seem like a lot of support, but 31 countries (plus Taiwan) currently produce nuclear energy. Notably missing from the declaration are Russia and the People’s Republic of China. Russia is the world’s leading exporter of nuclear power plants and has the fourth largest nuclear energy capacity globally; China has built the most nuclear power plants of any country in the last two decades and ranks third globally in capacity. Thirteen other countries that have key nuclear programs are also missing from the declaration: five in Europe (Armenia, Belarus, Belgium, Switzerland and Spain), two in South Asia (India and Pakistan) three in the Americas (Argentina, Brazil and Mexico), South Africa (the only nuclear energy producer in Africa), and Iran.

5: Five of the countries signing the declaration do not have nuclear power—Mongolia, Morocco, Ghana, Moldova, and Poland. Only Poland’s electricity grid can support three or four large nuclear reactors—the rest would have to invest billions of dollars first to expand their grids or rely on smaller reactors that would not overwhelm grid capacity. Poland wants to replace its smaller coal plants with almost 80 small modular reactors (SMRs), but these “paper reactors” are largely just plans and not yet proven technology. One American vendor, NuScale, recently scrapped a six-unit project when cost estimates rose exponentially. In any event, none of these five countries is likely to make a significant contribution toward tripling nuclear energy in the next 20 years.

Read more here: https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/the-nu ... heading

RELATED:
A small modular reactor’s demise calls for big change in Energy Department policy: https://thebulletin.org/2023/11/a-smal ... nt-policy

[wjfox]

[caltrek]

Nuclear Power: The Thousand Year-Plus Albatross Around Humanity’s Neck
by Eve Ottenberg
January 12, 2024

Introduction:

(Counterpunch) The only sane reaction to Japan’s December debut of its six-story experimental fusion reactor is uh-oh. You thought we had it bad with fission reactors blowing up in places like Fukushima and Chernobyl, spewing radioactivity over land and into the ocean? Well, if lotsa money starts pouring into fusion reactors, mark my words, we’ll have it even worse. Of course, fusion boosters claim there’s no danger or nuclear waste and fusion will be the cleanest energy ever. But rest assured there will be radioactive or other hiccups down the road. Like what happens if something goes wrong and a fusion reactor as hot as the sun blows up? Our species has its hands full with the environmental mess it made with fission power plants, whose waste litters the landscape because no one knows what to do with it. Why not hold the fusion ones till we solve the fission problems first?

Remember it was Japan that not too long ago began dumping radioactive waste water from its infamous Fukushima nuclear power melted-down reactors into the ocean in huge quantities, prompting Beijing to ban the import of Japanese fish. China’s move is all very well and good, but who says the irradiated fish will only remain near Japan’s shores? Tokyo’s monkey-brained scheme of filling the Pacific with damaging isotopes has no guard rail around northern waters. It can spread – and will. The Pacific is gigantic, you say? Well, so are the quantities of contaminated water from Fukushima.

Japan began dumping this poison in late August, with an initial release of a modest three Olympic swimming pools-worth of water. According to the AP August 24, “The plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power has…reduced the increase in contaminated water to about 100 tons a day, one fifth of the initial amount.” Most of the water is “stored in around 1000 tanks, which are already filled to 98 percent of their 1.37 million-ton capacity.” And that’s the kicker: Tokyo plans to release that 1.37 million tons of radioactive water into the Pacific. If you think that’s kinda a lot, you have a knack for understatement.

Read more here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/01/1 ... ys-neck/

[wjfox]

Nuclear goes backwards, again, as wind and solar enjoy another year of record growth

21 January 2024

The nuclear renaissance of the late-2000s was a bust due to the Fukushima disaster and catastrophic cost overruns with reactor projects. The latest renaissance is heading the same way, i.e. nowhere. Nuclear power went backwards last year.

There were five reactor start-ups and five permanent closures in 2023 with a net loss of 1.7 gigawatts (GW) of capacity. There were just six reactor construction starts in 2023, five of them in China.

Due to the ageing of the reactor fleet, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) anticipates the closure of 10 reactors (10 GW) per year from 2018 to 2050.

[...]

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are the subject of endless hype but there were no SMR construction starts or startups last year. The biggest SMR news in 2023 was NuScale Power’s decision to abandon its flagship project in Idaho despite securing astronomical subsidies amounting to around US$4 billion (A$6.1 billion) from the US government.

The pro-nuclear Breakthrough Institute noted in a November 2023 article that efforts to commercialise a new generation of ‘advanced’ nuclear reactors “are simply not on track” and it warned nuclear advocates not to “whistle past this graveyard”.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-goe ... rd-growth/

[wjfox]

The debacle continues...

Such a massive waste of money, and ever more ludicrous timescales. I wouldn't be surprised if it reaches £50bn and isn't completed until 2040.

We're far better off investing in renewables, batteries/storage, undersea power cables to neighbouring countries, and other baseload improvements.

-----

Hinkley Point C could be delayed to 2031 and cost up to £35bn, says EDF

The owner of Hinkley Point C has blamed inflation, Covid and Brexit as it announced the nuclear power plant project could be delayed by a further four years, and cost £2.3bn more.

The plant in Somerset, which has been under construction since 2016, is now expected to be finished by 2031 and cost up to £35bn, France’s EDF said. However, the cost will be far higher once inflation is taken into account, because EDF is using 2015 prices.

The latest in a series of setbacks represents a huge delay to the project’s initial timescale. In 2007, the then EDF chief executive Vincent de Rivaz said that by Christmas in 2017, turkeys would be cooked using electricity generated from atomic power at Hinkley. When the project was finally given the green light in 2016, its cost was estimated at £18bn.

“Like other major infrastructure projects, we have found civil construction slower than we hoped and faced inflation, labour and material shortages, on top of Covid and Brexit disruption,” said Stuart Crooks, the project’s managing director, in a message to staff.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... n-says-edf

[Time_Traveller]

The debacle continues...

Such a massive waste of money, and ever more ludicrous timescales. I wouldn't be surprised if it reaches £50bn and isn't completed until 2040.

We're far better off investing in renewables, batteries/storage, undersea power cables to neighbouring countries, and other baseload improvements.

-----

Hinkley Point C could be delayed to 2031 and cost up to £35bn, says EDF

The owner of Hinkley Point C has blamed inflation, Covid and Brexit as it announced the nuclear power plant project could be delayed by a further four years, and cost £2.3bn more.

The plant in Somerset, which has been under construction since 2016, is now expected to be finished by 2031 and cost up to £35bn, France’s EDF said. However, the cost will be far higher once inflation is taken into account, because EDF is using 2015 prices.

The latest in a series of setbacks represents a huge delay to the project’s initial timescale. In 2007, the then EDF chief executive Vincent de Rivaz said that by Christmas in 2017, turkeys would be cooked using electricity generated from atomic power at Hinkley. When the project was finally given the green light in 2016, its cost was estimated at £18bn.

“Like other major infrastructure projects, we have found civil construction slower than we hoped and faced inflation, labour and material shortages, on top of Covid and Brexit disruption,” said Stuart Crooks, the project’s managing director, in a message to staff.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... n-says-edf

The best way is to cancel it altogether and they should have done that years ago and yes, I agree the UK should invest in renewables etc more instead.

[Time_Traveller]

New nuclear future for Berkeley nuclear power station site

4 hours ago



A former nuclear power station site is to be redeveloped for a new kind of nuclear technology.

Berkeley, in Gloucestershire, was home to a Magnox reactor from 1962 to 1989.

The site is now owned by South Gloucestershire and Stroud College (SGS), who have agreed to sell their science park on the site to Chiltern Vital Group (CVG).

Working with Rolls Royce, CVG plan to establish a low-carbon energy 'super cluster' at the site.

The idea is to attract companies developing technology to help create so-called 'small modular reactors'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-g ... e-68127378

[wjfox]

New nuclear future for Berkeley nuclear power station site

4 hours ago



A former nuclear power station site is to be redeveloped for a new kind of nuclear technology.

Berkeley, in Gloucestershire, was home to a Magnox reactor from 1962 to 1989.

The site is now owned by South Gloucestershire and Stroud College (SGS), who have agreed to sell their science park on the site to Chiltern Vital Group (CVG).

Working with Rolls Royce, CVG plan to establish a low-carbon energy 'super cluster' at the site.

The idea is to attract companies developing technology to help create so-called 'small modular reactors'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-g ... e-68127378

I predict it will fail, just like NuScale in the U.S.

[Time_Traveller]

New nuclear future for Berkeley nuclear power station site

4 hours ago



A former nuclear power station site is to be redeveloped for a new kind of nuclear technology.

Berkeley, in Gloucestershire, was home to a Magnox reactor from 1962 to 1989.

The site is now owned by South Gloucestershire and Stroud College (SGS), who have agreed to sell their science park on the site to Chiltern Vital Group (CVG).

Working with Rolls Royce, CVG plan to establish a low-carbon energy 'super cluster' at the site.

The idea is to attract companies developing technology to help create so-called 'small modular reactors'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-g ... e-68127378

I predict it will fail, just like NuScale in the U.S.

Well I'll keep an eye on this, either way but only time will tell.

[wjfox]