I agree - but I think the answer is a mix. One advantage of SMRs is where and when they can be deployed. For example, many factories need process heat. For deep carbonization to occur this process heat needs to be replaced. Currently we use natural gas and coal, and wind and solar can't really replace this. Large nuclear reactors can supply process heat inefficiently, but SMRs are ideal for this purpose. A single SMR could provide all the process heat and electricity for a large chemical plant, for example.
We need SMRs whether they provide commercial electricity or not. In addition, this might be, by far, the cheapest way to supply process heat to factories.
I'm also a little leery of saying SMRs are unproven. the nuclear navy have been using what are essentially SMRs for decades in their ships. We have millions of operation hours with these units; hence the risk is fairly low.
APRs all the way, proven design and years of operational experience is key to safely and reliably operating these machines,
Trust me, I know, 42 years in nuclear plant operation, maintenance and engineering. The US industry has a 90%capacity factor for mainly one reason, operational experience, OE.
We have learned how to operate and maintain these large plants. We have zero operational experience with SMR’s. that’s a problem.
SMR’s or similar concept probably will lead in a couple decades, but should Colorado bear the initial testing costs, or shouldn’t that be done by an entire country?
It's still a generous assumption that a 4-unit APR1400 could be constructed in the United States for $24B. I'd offer that a decent estimate would be to take the original Vogtle per unit estimate of $7B and adjust to 2025 dollars which produces a $10B/unit cost. That would see a $41B cost for a 4-unit APR1400 facility. A 50% premium for infrastructure construction in the United States feels right.
Trying to get that IRP approved by the PUC would be challenging. You'd also need a significant amount of transmission upgrades for such a facility as the output is at the level that the Colorado Power Pathways supports . Transmission export capacity out of Colorado would be necessary as well to market the output above load as such a plant would see Colorado as one of the largest power exporters in the WECC. That right there is likely another $2B or in network upgrades. Colorado could probably see some nice energy sales in this scenario, though probably not enough to offset the higher resource portfolio cost.
That is a HUGE cost savings that people can't seem to grasp - integrating the power source with the existing grid. The gird, as it is, was VERY expensive to build out. Building new energy sources AND changing how the grid works at the same time, is very expensive.
Nuclear can slot into coal and be built next door. All the transmission, connections, etc. are already in place.
David, are there any initiatives you are aware of to move forward with Yucca Mountain as a permanent spent fuel repository (now that Harry Reid has retired)?
Also, is there any attempt to relook at the U.S. decision to now allow the reprocessing of spent fuel (under Jimmy Carter)the way Europe generally does?
I apologize that these questions are only indirectly related, but they're all parts of the puzzle that the American people will need to buy into. Thanks.
There seems to be some movement on recycling the waste. You could cut the volume by 95%. There is a new waste recycling start up. It seems to have government support.
Maybe you could do a deep dive into why the lead time for anything nuclear is so long. What actually happens for 9-12 years? Can it be parallelized and sped up?
Anyway the Trusk regime is not all interested in decarbonization. "Mine baby mine" may be the new old thing.
It's NEPA and NRC to a large degree. But at each location there tends to be other ways to delay it legally. It doesn't stop it but those delaying try to make it so difficult the company gives up.
As to the Trump Administration, they do appear to be strongly in favor of nuclear. I dislike Trump too but that does not mean every policy of his is bad.
I agree - but I think the answer is a mix. One advantage of SMRs is where and when they can be deployed. For example, many factories need process heat. For deep carbonization to occur this process heat needs to be replaced. Currently we use natural gas and coal, and wind and solar can't really replace this. Large nuclear reactors can supply process heat inefficiently, but SMRs are ideal for this purpose. A single SMR could provide all the process heat and electricity for a large chemical plant, for example.
We need SMRs whether they provide commercial electricity or not. In addition, this might be, by far, the cheapest way to supply process heat to factories.
I'm also a little leery of saying SMRs are unproven. the nuclear navy have been using what are essentially SMRs for decades in their ships. We have millions of operation hours with these units; hence the risk is fairly low.
APRs all the way, proven design and years of operational experience is key to safely and reliably operating these machines,
Trust me, I know, 42 years in nuclear plant operation, maintenance and engineering. The US industry has a 90%capacity factor for mainly one reason, operational experience, OE.
We have learned how to operate and maintain these large plants. We have zero operational experience with SMR’s. that’s a problem.
SMR’s or similar concept probably will lead in a couple decades, but should Colorado bear the initial testing costs, or shouldn’t that be done by an entire country?
It's still a generous assumption that a 4-unit APR1400 could be constructed in the United States for $24B. I'd offer that a decent estimate would be to take the original Vogtle per unit estimate of $7B and adjust to 2025 dollars which produces a $10B/unit cost. That would see a $41B cost for a 4-unit APR1400 facility. A 50% premium for infrastructure construction in the United States feels right.
Trying to get that IRP approved by the PUC would be challenging. You'd also need a significant amount of transmission upgrades for such a facility as the output is at the level that the Colorado Power Pathways supports . Transmission export capacity out of Colorado would be necessary as well to market the output above load as such a plant would see Colorado as one of the largest power exporters in the WECC. That right there is likely another $2B or in network upgrades. Colorado could probably see some nice energy sales in this scenario, though probably not enough to offset the higher resource portfolio cost.
I think the nuclear should replace the coal. And built next door to the coal plants. So no need to upgrade transmission lines then.
That is a HUGE cost savings that people can't seem to grasp - integrating the power source with the existing grid. The gird, as it is, was VERY expensive to build out. Building new energy sources AND changing how the grid works at the same time, is very expensive.
Nuclear can slot into coal and be built next door. All the transmission, connections, etc. are already in place.
David, are there any initiatives you are aware of to move forward with Yucca Mountain as a permanent spent fuel repository (now that Harry Reid has retired)?
Also, is there any attempt to relook at the U.S. decision to now allow the reprocessing of spent fuel (under Jimmy Carter)the way Europe generally does?
I apologize that these questions are only indirectly related, but they're all parts of the puzzle that the American people will need to buy into. Thanks.
Sorry, no idea
There seems to be some movement on recycling the waste. You could cut the volume by 95%. There is a new waste recycling start up. It seems to have government support.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Plans-announced-for-pilot-US-nuclear-fuel-recycling
Maybe you could do a deep dive into why the lead time for anything nuclear is so long. What actually happens for 9-12 years? Can it be parallelized and sped up?
Anyway the Trusk regime is not all interested in decarbonization. "Mine baby mine" may be the new old thing.
It's NEPA and NRC to a large degree. But at each location there tends to be other ways to delay it legally. It doesn't stop it but those delaying try to make it so difficult the company gives up.
As to the Trump Administration, they do appear to be strongly in favor of nuclear. I dislike Trump too but that does not mean every policy of his is bad.