[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[Spartan86]

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

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

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Win1894

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.