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]

[weatheriscool]

20 Megawatt Nuclear Reactors That Can Fit In a Truck
March 7, 2024 by Brian Wang
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/03/2 ... truck.html

NANO Nuclear is a startup that has raised over $8 million to develop micro nuclear fission reactors with up to 20 megawatts of power. They will be transported by Semi Trucks.

They plan to sell 1,000 microreactors on a yearly basis for a trillion-dollar industry. Nuclear currently supplies some 18% of US power needs off 95GW of installed capacity, according to the Energy Information Agency (EIA). The Department of Energy (DoE) forecasts the country will need around 200GW of new nuclear capacity to reach net-zero by 2050.

[caltrek]

Say No to Small Modular Reactors: Stop Normalizing the Exploitation of Nature
by Erin Hurley
April 1, 2024

Introduction:

(Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) Among other global crises, the worsening impacts of climate change are intensifying every year. Last year was the warmest on record and, beginning in March 2023, raging wildfires filled cities across Canada with smoke for months. This year is already shaping up to be warmer than the last. This is why a lot of young people are questioning the very systems we live under. This is why many of us support a rapid and just transition in energy. But in this process, some governments are promoting an expansion of nuclear power, supposedly to solve climate change. I fear that such an expansion will result in my generation having to confront an equally terrifying set of problems resulting from the nuclear fuel chain.

This is precisely what I already see happening around me in the Canadian province of New Brunswick where I live and study. Over the last few years, the province’s government has advocated for and funded the development of what it calls small modular reactors (SMRs). Even though SMR doesn’t include the word “nuclear,” these are nuclear reactors. Ostensibly, these reactors are meant to decarbonize the Canadian economy. But in 2021, New Brunswick Energy Minister Mike Holland protested the 2030 target for phasing out coal in the province, saying new nuclear reactors would not be ready in time to meet that goal. How will the expansion of nuclear power decarbonize the economy if, meanwhile, New Brunswick is still extracting and burning fossil fuels?

The province has funded two companies—Moltex Energy and ARC Clean Technology—to develop small modular reactors. On their websites, Moltex and ARC market nuclear power as “clean,” “carbon free,” and a “clean energy solution.”

Read more here: https://thebulletin.org/2024/04/say-no ... -heading

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

Nuclear option costs ‘six times more’ than renewables, study finds

May 18, 2024

The high upfront costs and burden on consumers of adding nuclear to Australia’s energy mix have been confirmed in an independent review.

Building nuclear reactors would cost six times more than wind and solar power firmed up with batteries, according to the independent report released on Saturday by the Clean Energy Council.

“We support a clear-eyed view of the costs and time required to decarbonise Australia and right now, nuclear simply doesn’t stack up,” the industry body’s chief executive Kane Thornton said.

Taxpayers needed to understand the decades of costs if they were forced to foot the bill for building a nuclear industry from scratch, Mr Thornton warned.

The analysis prepared by construction and engineering experts Egis also found nuclear energy had poor economic viability in a grid dominated by renewable energy.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-opt ... udy-finds/

[wjfox]

Nuclear power is ‘overblown’ as an energy source for data centers, power company CEO says

Mon, Jun 10 2024

The euphoria over nuclear energy as a power source for data centers is “overblown,” the CEO of a major power provider for large tech companies told CNBC in an interview Monday.

AES Corporation CEO Andrés Gluski said renewable energy is the future, though natural gas will also play a role as a transition fuel. Nuclear power, on the other hand, faces challenges in meeting the growing power demand from data centers, Gluski said.

AES is a major power provider for large tech companies building out data centers, with more than 40% of its 12.7 gigawatt backlog coming from customers including Amazon, Microsoft and Google, according to its most recent earnings presentation to investors.

Some Wall Street analysts have predicted a nuclear renaissance as power demand increases thanks to artificial intelligence, data centers, re-industrialization and the electrification of the vehicle fleet. Nuclear provides reliable, carbon-free energy, though new projects have long lead times and are expensive.

Gluski said the “euphoria” over nuclear power is a “little overblown.” There is only so much existing nuclear energy that merchant power providers can re-contract to sites such as data centers, the CEO said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/10/nuclear ... -says.html

[wjfox]

Analyst Says Nuclear Industry Is ‘Totally Irrelevant’ in the Market for New Power Capacity

July 8, 2024

Nuclear power has consistently provided about 19% to 20% of total annual U.S. electricity generation since 1990. It provides significant amounts of electricity in many other countries as well.

According to data from The World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR), a total of 414 reactors were operating in 32 countries, as of July 1, 2024. Preliminary data says China generated the second-most electricity from nuclear power in 2023 (behind the U.S.), while France came in third and had the highest percentage share of national power generation from nuclear power at 65%.

Many power industry experts and environmental activists consider nuclear power an important component in the world’s transition to carbon-free energy. Yet, Mycle Schneider, an independent international analyst on energy and nuclear policy, and coordinator, editor, and publisher of the annual WNISR, said, “in [new] capacity terms, the nuclear industry, from what is going on, on the ground, is totally irrelevant.”

https://www.powermag.com/analyst-says-n ... -capacity/

[weatheriscool]

[firestar464]

More on that by France 24

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 ... lear-plant

[weatheriscool]

[wjfox]

Coalition’s nuclear power plan is ‘economic insanity’, Jim Chalmers says on eve of major Dutton speech

Sun 22 Sep 2024 04.37 BST

Coalition plans to build seven nuclear power plants are “economic insanity”, Jim Chalmers has said, in the lead-up to a speech by Peter Dutton that is expected to provide new details of the policy.

The federal opposition has outlined plans to build seven nuclear reactors across five states, should it win the next election, with the first to be built by 2035 to 2037 at the earliest.

The proposed reactors would be built in areas with existing coal-fired power stations, including the Hunter Valley and Lithgow in New South Wales, Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, Collie in Western Australia and Port Augusta in South Australia.

[...]

“Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy is economic insanity,” Chalmers told Sky News on Sunday. “It costs more, it will push power prices up, it will take longer.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ton-speech