Off the Siberian coast, not far from Alaska, a Russian ship has been docked at port for four years. The Akademik Lomonosov, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, sends energy to around 200,000 people on land using next-wave nuclear technology: small modular reactors.

This technology is also being used below sea level. Dozens of US submarines lurking in the depths of the world’s oceans are propelled by SMRs, as the compact reactors are known.

SMRs — which are smaller and less costly to build than traditional, large-scale reactors — are fast becoming the next great hope for a nuclear renaissance as the world scrambles to cut fossil fuels. And the US, Russia and China are battling for dominance to build and sell them.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 39 points 2 years ago (7 children)

One of the less widely discussed issues with nuclear is that the bigger plants are all somewhat unique in their engineering particulars, which makes it more costly to maintain them. SMRs can be more readily standardised, which is expected to improve their economics as well as their cost to maintain.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    This is only partially true, France for example has standardized its reactors in the past, with a lot of success, and is planning to do it again for the new projects which are planned in the 2030s. Now it was done in the past with little care for local populations and so on, so we'll see how it goes. What is true though is that standardization also makes sense when there is a repetitive market foreseen. New nuclear project tend to be announced in small numbers, due to the difficulty of investing so much capital at a time, which makes standardization difficult. Smaller reactors may help, but I remain sceptical with the tech.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (19 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I doubt it. Unless they have power storage of some kind, like SSR designs where they use a thermal battery of some kind.

    The fundamental issue with nuclear power is that it produces a fixed output (which falls over time) which cannot be managed. Aside from just deleting what would otherwise be power (which is where the power storage comes into play)

    It's not impossible though, but then again it's not impossible for any nuclear plant to store energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The small reactors on submarines can maneuver very quickly without causing fuel damage. Less power per core = less heat generation. Large reactors are limited by flux rate because they can have such high localized heating during maneuvering which has the potential to damage fuel. In that sense, SMRs could raise and lower power to meet demand or even operate on full power/standby basis like what gas plants offer during peak load.

    I can’t speak to the strategy of an electric utility using SMRs, but to your point, I would think the idea would still be base load. Build a site with the potential for more SMRs to be built to meet demand in the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (18 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Can we not standardize the big ones? Their only dependent factor is a big enough water source for cooling, right? Everything else is just land space and supplies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    I think the scale of the projects and the amount of time it takes to build gives people time to work things in to the plans. I also imagine it's affected by the local supply chain.

    That being said I'm more on the fence about them after reading about some of the challenges involved in making them economical. Can you imagine a factory recall on a reactor part? And that's not even talking about nuclear waste disposal which we still haven't figured out reliably beyond "stick it over there and hopefully it won't be a problem for a few hundred years."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    The construction projects themselves also typically require upgrades to local infrastructure. I live near the failed nuclear project in SC and they had to upgrade rail infrastructure near my town, they had to build multiple new bridges over the railroad because the clearance wasn't high enough for some of the prefabricated components that had to be transported to the site by rail, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Yes and no. Currently the rules around nuclear plants are so strict that each installation becomes bespoke, because small changes that are the reality of construction need to get reapproved.

    If regulatory bodies were more open to approving acceptable ranges, or being proactive in the design process we could have more standardized designs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    I think one of the differences is where the construction happens. SMR should be able to come from the factory in more complete modules, vs assembling everything in the field. While it could never do the volume to make it mass production, in theory you could get similar benefits from automation, repetition, controlled environment, etc. Meanwhile site assembly should be corresponding simpler

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 22 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I've been following the situation in Canada. Afaik the closest we are to getting SMRs is a plan to supplement power production at the Darlington, Ontario CANDU plant using SMRs of the GE Hitachi design. The utility is seeking regulatory approval on the first of 4, but they haven't broken ground yet to the best of my knowledge. Each would put out up to 300 Mw, so I guess the completed project would add 1.2 Gw to the grid.

    Ontario gets around half its power from nuclear, and the current provincial government is gung-ho on building more capacity. While I am not opposed to the idea (they would need to build more anyway just to maintain that ratio in coming decades), the fact that it comes at the heels of them cancelling nearly every renewable energy project at the beginning of their term adds a sour note. These included those that were actually under construction, and tax money had to foot the bill on broken contracts. It was flabbergasting. I am cautiously optimistic about SMRs but they are still vapourware for the most part at this time.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    It's a known tactic of the fossil fuel industry (and the politicians they own) to push SMRs as a delay tactic, so they can continue to make money from coal and gas for a bit longer. And conservative parties get to play culture war over it, which we know they love to do.

    If something real comes out of it then great, but you can't plan an energy transition based on a technology that isn't proven yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Oh man, that is just depressing. I mean I wouldn't put it past them. It's like this whole business with carbon capture.

    A couple of years ago, I was driving around the Permian Basin near Midland, Texas. I asked a local about all these gas flares you'd see. He said it's waste natural gas. They're drilling for oil, you see, so they just burn it off. When I looked incredulous, he added that it's better than simply venting it. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas! Well sure, but…

    Let's just say it would take a lot to convince me at this point that the future is carbon capture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's absolutely what's going on here. the whole "nuclear renaissance" is nothing but a smoke screen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Yeah unless it's we all suddenly rush to build them and all the renewable options for padding the grid then, yeah. It's just a ruse to make it look like we are doing anything at all to make people feel better about flying private jets for a day trip to their favorite fishing pond. (Something I know a millionaire does personally)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    It’s like this whole business with carbon capture.

    Yep, it's very similar to the CCS push from the 2000s. And you saw the Democratic party pushing it too, despite it fast becoming obvious that it's not viable.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    the world’s first floating nuclear power plant

    That's a weird thing to say, considering we've had nuclear power plants inside submarines since 1958.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Yeah, it's pretty common for subs/ships at Pearl harbor to supply power back to the Hawaiian grid in the case of a blackout.

    It honestly could be done at any naval base, but most of them would not be able to meet the needs of the larger urban areas they dock at.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, Soviet/Russian technology, the posterchild for prudence and carefulness.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The Akademik Lomonosov was supposed to cost the equivalent of $232M, but ended up somewhere north of $700M all for a net electrical output of 64MWe. In that respect, it follows a familiar path for nuclear projects.

    On a cost/kW basis, it's about three times the cost of wind installations. ($3625/kW vs $1300/kW)

    The last co-gen plant I worked on had an output of 353MWe and cost about $450M, which was about $50M under budget.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    When they say small, how small are we talking? The size of a sedan? A school bus?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›