Nuclear Power Microreactor.

[MorTech]

These will be the future of decentralized grid electric power.
50Mwe - Refuel every 10 years.
About $80M each built in a factory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTOrEhO7mj8

[Arctic Fox]

These will be the future of decentralized grid electric power.
50Mwe - Refuel every 10 years.
About $80M each built in a factory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTOrEhO7mj8

Would be good if it happens, but security will be an issue. The theft of any amount of radioactive material, however small, can be a terrorist risk.

[elevatorman]

Would be good if it happens, but security will be an issue. The theft of any amount of radioactive material, however small, can be a terrorist risk.

Sheldon tried this and got busted.:024:

[Win1894]

We really missed the boat on nuclear power generation. We need a national effort in the US that would be on a scale similar to the NASA program the 60s to land man on the moon. Sadly, we focus developmental efforts on inefficient, stop-gap sources of power like solar and wind, which are intermittent, low energy density, short lived, and litter the landscape. We have enough naturally occurring Uranium and Thorium to meet the total energy needs of our country for a thousand years. Fourth and even fifth generation nuclear power is safe, totally green (non polluting), and easily fits into the existing electrical power distribution infrastructure. All it would take is a national commitment between government and industry (like NASA) and, most importantly, the will of the people. The technology to make this happen already exists and is being further developed in the case of fifth generation reactors. Shamefully, we haven't had effective energy leadership in this country for 40 years.

[Rainger99]

Does anyone have any idea how much the energy produced by the microreactors would cost?

Would it be cheaper than coal, gas, wind or solar?

[Topspinmo]

We really missed the boat on nuclear power generation. We need a national effort in the US that would be on a scale similar to the NASA program the 60s to land man on the moon. Sadly, we focus developmental efforts on inefficient, stop-gap sources of power like solar and wind, which are intermittent, low energy density, short lived, and litter the landscape. We have enough naturally occurring Uranium and Thorium to meet the total energy needs of our country for a thousand years. Fourth and even fifth generation nuclear power is safe, totally green (non polluting), and easily fits into the existing electrical power distribution infrastructure. All it would take is a national commitment between government and industry (like NASA) and, most importantly, the will of the people. The technology to make this happen already exists and is being further developed in the case of fifth generation reactors. Shamefully, we haven't had effective energy leadership in this country for 40 years.

40 years? IMO never.

NASA to busy vacationing in space on ISS. Besides what would we do with all billions spent on floating around earth?:shocked::shocked:

[biker1]

Three accidents turned public opinion; one was probably bad training, one was bad luck, and one was incompetence. Construction cost overruns didn't help. Much of the public's attention is focused on a deep political divide in this country, the looming SS and Medicare/Medicaid financial problems, and our overall debt. I don't see nuclear energy becoming the high priority it should be. I hope I am wrong.

We really missed the boat on nuclear power generation. We need a national effort in the US that would be on a scale similar to the NASA program the 60s to land man on the moon. Sadly, we focus developmental efforts on inefficient, stop-gap sources of power like solar and wind, which are intermittent, low energy density, short lived, and litter the landscape. We have enough naturally occurring Uranium and Thorium to meet the total energy needs of our country for a thousand years. Fourth and even fifth generation nuclear power is safe, totally green (non polluting), and easily fits into the existing electrical power distribution infrastructure. All it would take is a national commitment between government and industry (like NASA) and, most importantly, the will of the people. The technology to make this happen already exists and is being further developed in the case of fifth generation reactors. Shamefully, we haven't had effective energy leadership in this country for 40 years.

[Spartan86]

Would be good if it happens, but security will be an issue. The theft of any amount of radioactive material, however small, can be a terrorist risk.

Not disagreeing at all, but I think from what I have read these small modular reactors run on a much less enriched level of uranium. An adjacent industry also up-and-coming is outfits that are processing existing nuclear waste for use in the small nuclear reactors so we have the potential to solve a few problems at once in the coming years. Very interesting.

The Standard Oil of nuclear (https://www.rationaloptimistsociety.com/post/the-standard-oil-of-nuclear)

[Bill14564]

Does anyone have any idea how much the energy produced by the microreactors would cost?

Would it be cheaper than coal, gas, wind or solar?

EDIT: 5MWe (not 50) changes things significantly. These are the new calculations but Ieft the others below for comparison.

$80M for 5MWe continuous for 10 years produces about 1/2 of the electricity it would take to pay itself off at $0.11/kwh.

Or another way:
If you could sell all 5MWe it produces for every hour of every dat for 10 years at $0.11/kwh then you would take in only $48M

Or one more:
If you could utilize 50% on average of its total capacity then you would need to sell electricity at $0.37/kwh to make $80M in 10 years.




Calculations below based on incorrect MWe

Very rough back of the envelope calculation:
$80M for 50MWe continuous for 10 years produces 6 times enough electricity to pay itself off at $0.11/kwh.

Or another way:
If you could sell all 50MWe it produces for every hour of every day for 10 years at $0.11/kwh then you would take in $480M.

Or one more:
If you could utilize 50% on average of its total capacity then you could sell electricity at $0.04/kwh to make $80M in 10 years

Reality:
- It may or may not cost $80M by the time it's actually ready for sale
- There will be a cost to add it to the electrical grid
- It is very unlikely that you could utilize its entire capacity 24 hours/day

[Win1894]

Three accidents turned public opinion; one was probably bad training, one was bad luck, and one was incompetence. Construction cost overruns didn't help. Much of the public's attention is focused on a deep political divide in this country, the looming SS and Medicare/Medicaid financial problems, and our overall debt. I don't see nuclear energy becoming the high priority it should be. I hope I am wrong.

Yes, the Chernobyl disaster poisoned public opinion for sure - more so than 3-Mile Island, and Fukushima hasn't helped. Chernobyl was a really bad design, one that would never have been built in the western world. It was built to make bomb grade Plutonium - generating electricity was a byproduct. It had no containment building and was operated by poorly trained personnel, and is the only accident that resulted in the loss of life. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident would have been completely avoided had the Japanese built it in an area not subject to earthquakes and tsunamis as they were advised to do. 3-Mile Island was a combination of equipment failure and human error. All of this (and more) would be obviated by 4th generation newer reactor technology. So, how you change public opinion remains as a huge impediment to solving both the huge and increasing demand for electrical power and combating climate change if that's your concern (no CO2 emissions with nuclear power).

[Arctic Fox]

"Reality: - It may or may not cost $80M by the time it's actually ready for sale"

Very true. There isn't a nuclear power station on the planet that was built for its predicted cost - often a 200-300% over-run

Hopefully, mass-producing them in a factory will help, but having Government write blank checks (if that's how it will operate) won't

[biker1]

Fukushima was actually just bad luck/timing. They knew they had a vulnerability with backup power generation and had planned to address the problem in the near future. Unfortunately, the tsunami took out the backup power generation they had at the plant before they could build a more hardened backup facility. It turns out that only about 50 people have died from the three nuclear accidents. This is far less than the deaths attributed to other sources of electricity. Your average person probably doesn't understand this. The rapid increase in nuclear power plant regulations in the US in the 70's caused an explosion in the cost and time to build nuclear power plants and effectively killed the industry. Also, the Simpsons didn't help from a public relations point of view.

Yes, the Chernobyl disaster poisoned public opinion for sure - more so than 3-Mile Island, and Fukushima hasn't helped. Chernobyl was a really bad design, one that would never have been built in the western world. It was built to make bomb grade Plutonium - generating electricity was a byproduct. It had no containment building and was operated by poorly trained personnel, and is the only accident that resulted in the loss of life. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident would have been completely avoided had the Japanese built it in an area not subject to earthquakes and tsunamis as they were advised to do. 3-Mile Island was a combination of equipment failure and human error. All of this (and more) would be obviated by 4th generation newer reactor technology. So, how you change public opinion remains as a huge impediment to solving both the huge and increasing demand for electrical power and combating climate change if that's your concern (no CO2 emissions with nuclear power).

[gorillarick]

Yeah, you could have just one. But a bigger picture is to put several, like maybe ten at one site. Spread the cost of running power lines, security, etc. etc.

One unit down? No big deal. Refueling*, one at a time.

*the way it is now a reactor could be down for two years for a refuel.

[HJBeck]

Overruns was mainly due to not having a standard design. Each plant became a more or less unique to itself except for the shell we see from the outside. The NRC didn’t help much because they would continuously update/change design requirements so that companies would have to reconstruct much of what they had already built. Always made me wonder if there wasn’t undue influence from the coal, oil, gas lobby to make nuclear economically unattractive.

[Rainger99]

Very rough back of the envelope calculation:
$80M for 50MWe continuous for 10 years produces 6 times enough electricity to pay itself off at $0.11/kwh.

Or another way:
If you could sell all 50MWe it produces for every hour of every day for 10 years at $0.11/kwh then you would take in $480M.

Or one more:
If you could utilize 50% on average of its total capacity then you could sell electricity at $0.04/kwh to make $80M in 10 years

Reality:
- It may or may not cost $80M by the time it's actually ready for sale
- There will be a cost to add it to the electrical grid
- It is very unlikely that you could utilize its entire capacity 24 hours/day

The 50 MWe (megawatts electrical) rating of a reactor refers to its continuous power output, typically measured as the rate of electrical energy it can produce per second.

The average U.S. household consumes about 10,791 kWh per year (2023 data), which translates to roughly 1.23 kW (kilowatts) on average when spread over time (10,791 kWh ÷ 8,760 hours/year ≈ 1.23 kW).

A 50 MWe reactor can power approximately 34,000 homes in the U.S., assuming typical household consumption and accounting for transmission losses and a 90% capacity factor.

So three of those reactors could power most of the homes in the Villages.

[Whatnext]

Fukushima was actually just bad luck/timing. They knew they had a vulnerability with backup power generation and had planned to address the problem in the near future. Unfortunately, the tsunami took out the backup power generation they had at the plant before they could build a more hardened backup facility. It turns out that only about 50 people have died from the three nuclear accidents. This is far less than the deaths attributed to other sources of electricity. Your average person probably doesn't understand this. The rapid increase in nuclear power plant regulations in the US in the 70's caused an explosion in the cost and time to build nuclear power plants and effectively killed the industry. Also, the Simpsons didn't help from a public relations point of view.

The actual deaths from different cancers ran into thousands with those who were exposed to the radio active fallout at Chernobyl. Later a spike in birth defects were also attributed to the disaster.

[SaucyJim]

Sheldon tried this and got busted.:024:

But he wasn’t crazy. His mother had him tested.

[defrey12]

We really missed the boat on nuclear power generation. We need a national effort in the US that would be on a scale similar to the NASA program the 60s to land man on the moon. Sadly, we focus developmental efforts on inefficient, stop-gap sources of power like solar and wind, which are intermittent, low energy density, short lived, and litter the landscape. We have enough naturally occurring Uranium and Thorium to meet the total energy needs of our country for a thousand years. Fourth and even fifth generation nuclear power is safe, totally green (non polluting), and easily fits into the existing electrical power distribution infrastructure. All it would take is a national commitment between government and industry (like NASA) and, most importantly, the will of the people. The technology to make this happen already exists and is being further developed in the case of fifth generation reactors. Shamefully, we haven't had effective energy leadership in this country for 40 years.

Wish I'd written that. That's about the time "identity politics" entered the landscape...the Green Movement. Too bad they don't understand science and economics.

[PlentyOfFish]

We really missed the boat on nuclear power generation. We need a national effort in the US that would be on a scale similar to the NASA program the 60s to land man on the moon. Sadly, we focus developmental efforts on inefficient, stop-gap sources of power like solar and wind, which are intermittent, low energy density, short lived, and litter the landscape. We have enough naturally occurring Uranium and Thorium to meet the total energy needs of our country for a thousand years. Fourth and even fifth generation nuclear power is safe, totally green (non polluting), and easily fits into the existing electrical power distribution infrastructure. All it would take is a national commitment between government and industry (like NASA) and, most importantly, the will of the people. The technology to make this happen already exists and is being further developed in the case of fifth generation reactors. Shamefully, we haven't had effective energy leadership in this country for 40 years.
Nuclear is our future.
AI and crypto use SO much electricity that we will HAVE to build more nuclear reactors..
China is building 30 unclear reactors right now...the US? Zero
The problem is our government.
China who is WAY ahead of the US in energy productivity.
China uses government to speed things up and the US uses government to slow things down..

This is why a certain congresswoman bought a water treatment stock. ( weird i thought ) NOW I KNOW WHY.
You need water to cool nuclear energy AND NDB's ( batteries that use nuclear waste) are the future

[rsmurano]

I worked for 2 electric/gas/fuel cell utilities for 3 decades. 30 years ago, we had a subsidiary that was working on natural gas fuel cells. The engineer showed me a fuel cell that was the size of a shoe box that would power a house. Their plan was to convert their natural gas customers with fuel cells at the street and use the existing electric line going to the house.
The by product of the fuel cell was water. Not sure what happened since I left that company 25 years ago. I know they are pursuing hydrogen fuel cells but that fuel isn’t readily available at the home

[jeepnjt]

Salt Lake City has may data centers. They are looking at adding these because of the massive power consumption of AI. When I started in IT a 2' x 4' computer rack consumed ~4kw. I have asks as high as 1 MW (1024 kw) for a single rack now. Nuclear is the best hope for powering that much. Google Microsoft and 3 Mile Island.

[Justputt]

eVinci is a 5MWe (not 50) and operates at full power for 8 years. eVinci™ Microreactor | Westinghouse Nuclear (https://westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/evinci-microreactor)

The animations are wishful thinking. The reactor building of all nuclear power plants is required to be designed to withstand a direct impact of the largest commercial jet fully loaded and fully fueled. Designed for worse case ground motion, terrorist attack, etc. etc.

While this reactor has only 19.75% enriched fuel, that is significantly higher than in traditional PWR and BWR units. Moving spent fuel will be a terrorist nightmare.

The cost of $80M is also wishful thinking when you add the cost of security, power distribution, and other infrastructure. Additionally, one of the main drivers of cost has been the cost of money, and once the intervenors (anti-nukes) discovered they could limit/kill nuclear power by dragging out construction for year$ costing billions, they'd find a sympathetic judge and keep litigating the same things at every site over and over. When ANO Unit 1 was built it took 6 years and less than $1B. Contrast that with Midland Nuclear plant that was to have cost <1$B but intervenors dragged construction out. The plant was 85% complete, 13 years behind schedule and over 20 times the original cost estimate when in 1984 Consumers Power canceled the project!! Compare that to Consumers Power sister plant Palisades that was completed in just 4.5 years at a total cost on $630M. IMO, nuclear will be heavily limited until the regulatory situation limits intervenors and requires surety bonds WHEN the intervenors lose in court, which they mostly do lose!

[Elixir34]

NOT two years to refuel a commercial reactor. Average three weeks. I worked at a plant that was refueled in 17 days. Then it ran at 100% power for 710 consecutive days before the next refueling.

[BostonRich]

I know it once was a pipe dream, but this actually seems small enough to power railroad locomotives. That would be an incredible game changer in transportation. Ironically, it would bring back steam powered locomotives!

[Caymus]

What is the output of one that powers a submarine?

[NewRealms]

How about the release of the Tesla type energy that has been suppressed for more than 100 years? This documentary was very interesting:
The Lost Century with Dr. Steven Greer.
The Lost Century and How To Reclaim It - Aliens, UFOs, Drones - Steven Greer (https://rumble.com/v62woce-the-lost-century-and-how-to-reclaim-it-aliens-ufos-drones-steven-greer.html)

[ton80]

I worked for 2 electric/gas/fuel cell utilities for 3 decades. 30 years ago, we had a subsidiary that was working on natural gas fuel cells. The engineer showed me a fuel cell that was the size of a shoe box that would power a house. Their plan was to convert their natural gas customers with fuel cells at the street and use the existing electric line going to the house.
The by product of the fuel cell was water. Not sure what happened since I left that company 25 years ago. I know they are pursuing hydrogen fuel cells but that fuel isn’t readily available at the home

The Carbon in NG also is consumed and released as CO2

[Win1894]

The actual deaths from different cancers ran into thousands with those who were exposed to the radio active fallout at Chernobyl. Later a spike in birth defects were also attributed to the disaster.

I also heard rumors to this effect including wild speculations about the tens of thousands that were projected to develop cancer. None has borne out with any degree of scientific scrutiny. These projections were based on the "linear no threshold model" that has since been proven wrong. The only accepted effect was a slight uptick in leukemia and thyroid cancer which, fortunately are relatively successfully treatable cancers. After forty years the scientists monitoring the situation believe that any cancers directly linked to Chernobyl are not detectible beyond background levels with any degree of scientific certainty. This goes even for the "liquidators", the term used for those who worked early on in the initial clean up effort. These workers were very closely followed, even now 40 years after the disaster. I could go on but will leave it at that.

[RoadTowed]

We really missed the boat on nuclear power generation. We need a national effort in the US that would be on a scale similar to the NASA program the 60s to land man on the moon. Sadly, we focus developmental efforts on inefficient, stop-gap sources of power like solar and wind, which are intermittent, low energy density, short lived, and litter the landscape. We have enough naturally occurring Uranium and Thorium to meet the total energy needs of our country for a thousand years. Fourth and even fifth generation nuclear power is safe, totally green (non polluting), and easily fits into the existing electrical power distribution infrastructure. All it would take is a national commitment between government and industry (like NASA) and, most importantly, the will of the people. The technology to make this happen already exists and is being further developed in the case of fifth generation reactors. Shamefully, we haven't had effective energy leadership in this country for 40 years.

We were there in the 80s.
Forwarded by President Regan.
Three mile island incident panic killed the initiative.
Then the coal crowd came on strong and unfortunately we're still stuck there.

[biker1]

Still stuck with coal? Not really. Coal accounts for less than 20% of electricity generation in the US.

We were there in the 80s.
Forwarded by President Regan.
Three mile island incident panic killed the initiative.
Then the coal crowd came on strong and unfortunately we're still stuck there.

[Justputt]

NOT two years to refuel a commercial reactor. Average three weeks. I worked at a plant that was refueled in 17 days. Then it ran at 100% power for 710 consecutive days before the next refueling.

I've also worked at a number of nuclear plants and seldom are they done anywhere near that fast. In my experience, refueling outages have ALWAYS been maintenance outages too and that stretches them into months 2-3 often.

[jimjamuser]

Overruns was mainly due to not having a standard design. Each plant became a more or less unique to itself except for the shell we see from the outside. The NRC didn’t help much because they would continuously update/change design requirements so that companies would have to reconstruct much of what they had already built. Always made me wonder if there wasn’t undue influence from the coal, oil, gas lobby to make nuclear economically unattractive.
Good possibility.

[MorTech]

EDIT: 5MWe (not 50) changes things significantly. These are the new calculations but Ieft the others below for comparison.

$80M for 5MWe continuous for 10 years produces about 1/2 of the electricity it would take to pay itself off at $0.11/kwh.

Or another way:
If you could sell all 5MWe it produces for every hour of every dat for 10 years at $0.11/kwh then you would take in only $48M

Or one more:
If you could utilize 50% on average of its total capacity then you would need to sell electricity at $0.37/kwh to make $80M in 10 years.




Calculations below based on incorrect MWe

Very rough back of the envelope calculation:
$80M for 50MWe continuous for 10 years produces 6 times enough electricity to pay itself off at $0.11/kwh.

Or another way:
If you could sell all 50MWe it produces for every hour of every day for 10 years at $0.11/kwh then you would take in $480M.

Or one more:
If you could utilize 50% on average of its total capacity then you could sell electricity at $0.04/kwh to make $80M in 10 years

Reality:
- It may or may not cost $80M by the time it's actually ready for sale
- There will be a cost to add it to the electrical grid
- It is very unlikely that you could utilize its entire capacity 24 hours/day

It can scale to 50MWe. This technology can throttle on demand.

[MorTech]

Nuclear is our future.
AI and crypto use SO much electricity that we will HAVE to build more nuclear reactors..
China is building 30 unclear reactors right now...the US? Zero
The problem is our government.
China who is WAY ahead of the US in energy productivity.
China uses government to speed things up and the US uses government to slow things down..

This is why a certain congresswoman bought a water treatment stock. ( weird i thought ) NOW I KNOW WHY.
You need water to cool nuclear energy AND NDB's ( batteries that use nuclear waste) are the future

China is building 500 nuclear reactors. They have their own designs. China is also building a bunch of coal-fired plants.

The newest designs don't need water. They throttle back naturally if overheated.

[MorTech]

NOT two years to refuel a commercial reactor. Average three weeks. I worked at a plant that was refueled in 17 days. Then it ran at 100% power for 710 consecutive days before the next refueling.

The plan is to just swap them out.

[MorTech]

Still stuck with coal? Not really. Coal accounts for less than 20% of electricity generation in the US.

The USA is rapidly moving to NatGas-fired plants. I think Florida is close to 80% NatGas and 20% nuclear. There are permits to build a few more nuke plants in Florida.

[Bill14564]

It can scale to 50MWe. This technology can throttle on demand.

There is a difference between scaling and throttling. If the device was scaled for 50MWe but typically throttled to 5MWe I would think the data sheet would indicate that. If the price scales along with the output then the calculations are the same.

In any case, my guess is the price is a WAG at this point. It will be interesting to see the actual cost of bringing one of these online in a commercial setting.

[biker1]

The approximate breakdown for the US:

40% natural gas
20% coal
20% nuclear
20% renewable

The percentage of electricity from coal has cropped by more than 2x in the last 25 years.


The USA is rapidly moving to NatGas-fired plants. I think Florida is close to 80% NatGas and 20% nuclear. There are permits to build a few more nuke plants in Florida.

[MorTech]

The Chinese are working on commercially viable Thorium reactors. It won't be long since the Chinese are wicked smart and industrious.

An application for this 5MWe nuke would be a row of EV charging stations at a Buc-ees. CATL claims their latest batteries can charge at 12C so 1Mw on a 80Kw battery pack is doable now.

The way Hollywood and the idiot box media screech about everything nuclear is borderline criminal. It is safe and clean and physically impossible to go critical in a power reactor. What is a "terrorist" going to do with 20% U235? If you want to make a dirty bomb then use Cobalt.

[Win1894]

The Chinese are working on commercially viable Thorium reactors. It won't be long since the Chinese are wicked smart and industrious.

An application for this 5MWe nuke would be a row of EV charging stations at a Buc-ees. CATL claims their latest batteries can charge at 12C so 1Mw on a 80Kw battery pack is doable now.

The way Hollywood and the idiot box media screech about everything nuclear is borderline criminal. It is safe and clean and physically impossible to go critical in a power reactor. What is a "terrorist" going to do with 20% U235? If you want to make a dirty bomb then use Cobalt.

Yes, to your first comment. With their authoritarian form of government the Chinese will make that happen. India is working towards a similar goal as they have a huge supply of Thorium containing ore. This type of effort is harder to pull off in the US. This is why I stated earlier in this thread that we need a program similar to our "put a man on the moon before the end of the decade" effort - a beautiful industry-government cooperative. A very expensive program for sure but well worth the effort. JFK's speech in 1962 at Rice University was one of the great ones - leadership at its best!!