Rolls Royce produce the nuclear power plant for the latest UK nuclear submarines. The UK subs are fuelled once and designed for 25 years without refuelling. The latest French nuclear subs by comparison have to be refuelled after 10 years. Rolls Royce are advanced and experienced in this branch of power generation. The UK subs have been performing since the 60's after the USA assisted by providing design and plans to the UK. Hopefully we will see this solution deployed by 2030. Not often the UK government and civil servants support the UK but they seem to have done the right thing here for once.....
Paul Bedichek well said Paul. Yes the UK has shared technology in aircraft and defence and it clearly made sense to do so. Unfortunately our communist penetrated post war government pushed RR to sell a jet engine to the Russians who then reverse engineered it and built the MIG which shot down a lot of US phantoms. I don't think the USA trusted the UK government after that. It will be interesting to see how AUKUS plays out as it has been another good and strong decision by a UK government. If we prepare for war we may avert it, if we don't it will come with a lot more destruction and misery than WWII, Australia is in the front line, NZ are the type of liberals aggressive expansionist facist regimes like but the Aussie spirit is calling them out and making a stand we have to support.
I saw something recently where Rolls Royce and Elon Musk's SpaceX are working together on nuclear propelled rockets. SpaceX and NASA are working together also from what I hear. I think the US and UK are ahead of the game with nuclear subs.
@@samuelforsyth6374 Right, molten salt is safer. As long as the water can't leak out though it's pretty safe. As long as it don't leak out. I learned recently the Oak Ridge Laboratory was working on molten salt reactors in the 50's and 60's. There were some problems though and it got shelved. Cheap coal and gas and oil was part of the problem I suppose.
Exactly. I hate when the nuclear industry sells their products with arguments like "it's a perfect complement to intermittent reliables". No. intermittent, weather-dependent power is pure garbage. All it does is increase the cost of the grid and makes the reliable power sources run less efficiently.
@@phamnuwen9442 god I wish there was a love button on TH-cam. I’ve had so many arguments with renewables zealots where I put this exact point and their response always amounts to nothing more than “nucular bad! Hur de hur de hur......”🙄🙄😕
@@Glenrok Unreliables, EV's and the entire climate-industrial movement is really a religion. They simply don't care about facts that contradict their religious dogma (and their 100% TSLA stock portfolio).
@@phamnuwen9442 sigh, you’re preaching to the converted here. I’m not myself totally against EV’s, but while ever we lack a reliable & adequate energy supply to charge the damn things they can never be feasible. A shame so many people are lost in their utopian dream they’re unable to grasp that.......
@@Glenrok I'm not against EV's being legal to build and drive. I'm just against having the government forcing them down our throats with subsidies and de facto criminalization of fossil fuels and internal combustion.
According to Elon Musk, 100 square miles of Solar Panels can power the entire USA without any other sources of energy. He is the richest man in the world...
@@eMemoryCard Elon is lying to you. Solar power is an intermittent power source, and he isn't considering the vast amount of batteries that would be required to transform the unreliable solar output into a reliable and affordable resource.
The Rolls Royce SMRs come with a seismic isolation platform under the nuclear island so they should be able to withstand fairly significant instability. There is not a huge amount of concrete involved, either, since the isolation vessel is a very thick steel construction.
Except that we will not need them for decades and fusion will be ready before then. The UK has run out of economic carbon energy reserves so their push for nuclear makes sense, however they are also being shifty bstards and trying to force them onto other nations such as Australia when we still have a trillion dollars worth of reserves waiting to be used. If we let the UK and others get away with their fake climate scam we will be a lot poorer and they will be richer, and that is what it is really about, yet again economically plundering Australia.
@@DanielSMatthewsThe UK has huge coal reserves. It also has sufficient gas for over a hundred years with fracking. Fusion is always only 30 years in the future.
@@peterd788 You are a fool or a liar _16 May 2014 - The UK's proven reserves of oil, coal and gas will run out in little more than five years, a report looking at energy resources warns._
I reside in the uk and I’m always amazed by the sensible news pieces that I get on UTube. Why is it that, particularly this one about SMR with Mr Samson from Rolls Royce, is not aired on uk sky or any other media output.
Why not have nuclear energy in Australia? Come on it’s science not the boogie man!!! Many are scared because of Chernobyl but that’s like not flying because of an air crash!!
Tell them to fund thorium reactors or nuclear fussion you cant solve the climate issue without figuring out the power issue. If we put as much effort in developing and developing nuclear energy as we do this whole carbon is the enemy of the people bullshit we would have it, thorium for now and fussion soon after. But hey thanks for killing capalism and all the fussion startups government really fucking helps thanks crony capalism and fuck the socialist and central banks. If We we didn't have government constantly bailing out gas and killing nuclear we would be in a much better place hell get rid of all nuclear regulations where fucked if we dont so fuck it
@@CatsRock11000 Nuclear Fusion is probably 50 years or so away: basically the end game. But I agree multiple countries should find LFTR, it will be carbon neutral, make sustainable renewable, and make a country energy independent.
Yes, affordable energy in theory, but certainly an increase in cancers, and in the event of mismanagement or carelessness we end up with more nuclear waste with lifespans of infinity.
@@marjoriedevine9051 a pilot gets more radiation per year than someone working at a reactor, the longer a halflife is the less dangerous it is... if you are a luddite that is fine but your fear of the unknown is holding everyone back
@@marjoriedevine9051 Here we go, someone with ZERO knowledge of the industry who wants to parrot the lies she so ignorantly accepted as fact! Research molten salt reactors if you want to learn how safe it is and you will be pleasantly surprised by what you will learn! Just dont get your facts from fake news or someone who is funded or endorsed by the oil and gas industry or you wont get the truth!
@Wes Parsons Climate Delusion: The false and delusional belief that mans effects on the earth’s climate are significant and dangerous. The carbon dioxide emissions are actually beneficial as plants are currently on a starvation diet. The Nuclear Power is Unsafe Delusion: The false and delusional belief that nuclear power plants are dangerous. Nuclear power is safer than rooftop solar which in turn is safer than coal.
@@johngeier8692 Pearls before swine, my friend. As you say Co2 is beneficial as without it life on Earth would simply not exist, certainly not as we know it. But, true we are presently CO2 IMPOVERISHED. Atnospheric equilibrium will be maintained one way or the other, scientists do know the CO2 hypothesis is nonsense, but if you wish to keep your position and continuous grants backed by goverment, then you must follow the mantra. Think or speak outside the box, and the gravy train stops. Money talks, unfortunately
@@johngeier8692 Anthracite Coal, which is used in Australia's modern power plants is highly efficient, produces maximum thermal output, is virtually emissions free, can provide 24/7 base load, is not dependent on external conditions, can be located anywhere at considerable distance from the consumer and are operational for decades longer than alternatives . They do not produce hazardous waste materials and have little impact on wildlife or vegetation after construction. In contrast, Roof top solar solar power is intermittent, unreliable, is dependent on location and weather conditions and requires battery banks or supplementation generated from gas or coal. Most concerning is their relatively short useful life and end of life disposal as solar panels and batteries categorized
Cool so we can discares wind and solar which are currently available, the cheapest energy sources for an island with the majority of its population on windy coast lines and with most of the land mass experiencing consistent sunshine? Nuclear makes no sense in Australia and the only reason its being pushed is to slow the uptake of renewables and continue the use of fossil fuels.
Australia has always been late for the boat when it comes to technology. And Australian politicians always been the blame for it. They won't learn from it. They continue to be the last ones to arrive. They sometimes miss the boat too. Depriving Australia because of their ignorance..They need to change this attitude.
SMR technology along with MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) technology makes perfect sense for zero carbon base load power. The only real problem is the (undeservedly) bad name that nuclear has gotten over the years. The new reactors are safe, small and efficient. I hope governments start investing more in these technologies and stop throwing all their (our) money at solar and wind.
Why not have nuclear energy in Australia? Come on it’s science not the boogie man!!! Many are scared because of Chernobyl but that’s like not flying because of an air crash!!
@@mikespike2099 the economics is the best reason not to have nuclear. Time to build is also very important. Safety only matters in the abstract but its still a negative for nuclear.
Add to consideration the ThorCon molten salt reactors.. or (radical suggestion) design some of our own based on Gen IV technologies. Either way, abolish the moratorium on all nuclear power generation now!
This looks very positive and realistic. Good to see govmt is supporting development. If they can use nuclear in submarines. above ground use should be a doddle.GREAT AND GOOD NEWS.
If the climate alarmists are fair dinkum they would be grabbing this with both hands as the perfect addition to the renewable arsenal required to maintain a growth in industries and lifestyle and reduce carbon emissions within their preferred timeline, sadly Im sure they will can this this in order to keep their alarmism alive
Yes, you'd think the alarmists would be all over the SMR's. But they don't seem to be. Subsidizing wind and solar which doesn't seem to be a good solution. At least for now. Not consistent enough and then there's the problem with storing the energy. I think all their talk is politically motivated.
Check out Moltex who are going through regulatory approval for a molten salt reactor. Their current version burns used nuke fuel solving the long term storage issue. It also fully burns the fuel so needs much less to give the same total power output.
It's really great. But coal is cheaper, easier and much more abundant than U 235. Hydrocarbons still has a big place in energy production and transport fuels... However, develop a Thorium cycle and then we really are talking about a real solution to future energy needs. But in the interim, Australia needs a nuclear industry so that we can gain technological expertise in this industry. As it stands we have very little experience with nuclear energy. These would help develop that. We have one of the world's largest reserves of Uranium, it behooves us to develop ourselves to its uses along its entire chain, from mining, to manufacturing, to reprocessing and storage.
Lithuania had a modern fully functional clean nuclear power station. The EU insisted that if Lithuania wanted to join the must immediately shut down this nuclear station, effectively forcing them to burn coal instead. Politicians (like Labor) and bureaucrats frequently make stupid decisions.
Australian government should also have Bechtel Corporation into the SMR study and make them bid on contracts. A1B reactor on Ford Aircraft Carrier could pull up now and power a small city.
Labor is so backward thinking. Won’t use mine uranium but Australia is already mining exporting and then storing depleted uranium in Australia. So why not use it as well. Think about it. If Australia used nuclear power we could have a lot of automated factories powered by them and start to manufacture again.
Our military here in the US is already deploying small reactors that can fit in a cargo plane and be delivered on a truck to power military installations in rough areas. They've been testing some in Alaska and a couple other places. Not a totally new thing they had some similar in the 50's but I think they had limitations or there were concerns about disposal of spent fuel. These new ones only have to be refueled every ten years or so.
It's such an obvious way to go. SMRs are safe and relatively cheap to produce. My only concern is, why aren't we moving faster on this? The design has every failsafe you could think of, nuclear fuel will be stored onsite to power the reactor for 60 years of continuous use. Within a decade or two fusion will be a reality. We need these built now and at scale. It'll secure power globally with no safety risks. You can even bury them if the anti-nuclear lobby has concerns. Let's get on with it quickly and sell to the world.
That CEO is a weird fish ......... seemed like he was not conscious of the camera and was trying to multi-task during the interview, perhaps he's an engineer, which would explain a lot.
"plenty of room to store waste" This is the second comment making the argument that Australia is suitable for nuclear "because there's plenty of room (land)". This makes zero sense, because nuclear hardly needs any land at all. The reactors have a tiny footprint relative to their power output, and the waste volumes are equally miniscule.
@@valenrn8657 It certainly can, but the waste from current reactors is already very limited in quantity, so there isn't really major waste problem. It's just something the anti-nukes make up to stop the technology.
To be honest I am not a fan of nuclear but in order to move on this sounds a good starting point. All we hear from climate activists is, stop this, do away with that, end the next thing. What we don't get are ideas with what to replace them for the future. This man seems to me to really know what he is talking about and this is surely one way to go for our future.
Why don't you like nuclear? It's reasonably affordable, extremely reliable, doesn't emit any pollution, and the reactor types we use in the civilized world (the West) have never killed a single person.
@@phamnuwen9442 Technically none of the reactors have. There are still 9 RMBK reactors (the same design used in that one accident) operational, one has an in operation date up to at least 2034 (45 yrs old), 2 were shut down in the last 2 years. One of Chernobyl's was still operational until 2000, but politics and money. There are at least 48 plants with at least one BWR reactor (many have two, some have three) (the same design of the reactor damaged during the earthquake). There are 100+ (400+) PWRs around the world (the same design of the 1979 accident). Even with these accidents fewer people have/will die compared to any other energy. Dams bust. Gas is dangerous. Coal pollutes. Solar can result in deforestation and flooding. Wind can cause forest fires, change wind patterns, and kill predatory birds. The worst that happens with nuclear is you might get thyroid cancer which has a 99% survival rate (in other words the worst case scenario for nuclear puts it just below coal).
@@namename9998 I agree that even the garbage reactors the communists built didn't kill many people in the overall context of energy production, but they did kill a couple of hundred with Chernobyl. Western reactors by contrast never killed a single person. And the big problem with unreliables isn't that they kill raptors and destroy the landscape (bad as that is) but that they can't produce reliable, affordable power. The only problem with nuclear is that the anti-industrial environmentalists have been extremely successful indoctrinating the people of the world with an unscientific and irrational fear of radiation.
@@kingcosworth2643 Yep. A machine designed by socialists, operated by socialists. The worst possible combination, yet still very few casualties, all things considered. The Banqiao hydro dam collapse in China is an interesting comparison since it killed 3 orders of magnitude more people. Nuclear power is unbelievably safe.
Nuclear is the only thing on the horizon that can replace coal over the next 25 years and 470MW is a good size as that can provide power for 800,000 to 1 million people.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 I think in Australia it will take a little longer but it should still be gone there in a couple of decades for power generation.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 That's why I specifically said for power generation. Coal is still the go to material for steel production and that will remain the case for some time.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 A second option (Peter has one, you have the other) "Abstract. The assessment have been carried out on Nuclear Hydrogen Cogeneration System (NHCS) applications for the steel industry. The steel industry is an industry that requires large amounts of energy which has implications for large amounts of CO2 emissions to the environment. The NHCS application is expected to be able to reduce the use of fossil fuels which automatically can also reduce the rate of CO2 emissions. The objectives is to understand the process of the NHCS as a source of heat energy, hydrogen and the electricity that can be used for the steel industry. The method used in this study is the study of literature. The development of the process of reducing iron ore into iron sponges that allows hydrogen to be used as a reducing agent, opens the opportunity for the use of NHCS to replace fossil fuels as a conventional energy source. NHCS is a high temperature nuclear reactor based cogeneration system as a source of energy. NHCS is able to provide large amounts of heat, electricity and hydrogen energy. The heat output of High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) at high temperatures is used to produce hydrogen, and is used as a heat source for shaft furnaces. While electrical energy is used for energy sources in electric arc furnaces. The replacement of conventional technology based on fossil fuels with the NHCS system is expected to be able to save on the use of fossil fuels, which will have implications for the significant reduction in the rate of CO2 emissions." The Assessment of Nuclear Hydrogen Cogeneration System Application for Steel Industry https aip.scitation. org /doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5135547
Great stuff. Seems like their goal of 2 reactors per year is way too low. They need to get that up to 1 per week and with a efficient production line drastically reduce unit cost.
@@bertthompson4748 Currently natural gas turbines are kept spinning and their steam up even when your renewables are producing electricity. This is because steam turbines take some time to get going. Then when the sun goes down or the wind stops blowing the natural gas turbines are sped up. This is highly wasteful and will get even more inefficient as more renewables are added. Industrial solar and wind are not as inexpensive as their propaganda says. If they were, why do they require subsidies, mandates and get very high wholesale prices over other sources. Here in CA utilities pay around 4¢/KWH, but industrial wind and solar get paid 11¢/KWH.
Canada is also working on an SMR in New Brunswick . An American company is involved . I think it’s to eventually replace an existing CANDU reactor. I also understand that some SMRs will run on spent nuclear fuel. Let’s hope this technology spreads rapidly.
Very good but Rolls Royce need to use a Thorium fuel cycle not a uranium one. Because uranium is a finite resource and thorium isn't. Plus the waste from uranium is much harder to deal with then with thorium, and about 20 other amazing benefits of using thorium :).
470MW sounds like a sensible, logical size for a modular factory built alternative. A combination of renewables, storage and a handful of small nuclear would be more viable than any other option I have seen to date. Until we have a genuinely environmentally friendly storage technology, we really are better off sticking with coal... Let's not try to fix something by creating a worse problem. If we use the profits/taxes from coal in the next couple of years to fund real innovation, we could actually make a difference...
I don't see the need for renewables once you accept nuclear as an acceptable power source. Wind/solar delivers 30% of rated capacity on average over the year. 70% would have to come from nuclear. That means for every 470MW of wind/solar installed you need 470MW of nuclear as well. So why bother installing wind/solar, just run nuclear all the time. You need to plan for at least a week of no wind or adequate sunshine. I would suggest that Storage is nowhere near mature enough for that and when you get to needing days of storage it will probably be way too expensive.
I agree with what you’re saying, but I still think it’s good to have a diversity of generation sources, which I think is more relevant than focusing on the supposedly green sources that aren’t really that green.
The trouble with SMRs is that they are still pressured water reactors and do have a small risk of failing and exploding. Molten Salt Reactors do not have these problems like Elysium's Industry Sodium Chloride Molten Salt FAST reactor, which consumes spent nuclear fuel , are already molten so can't melt down, runs at almost atmospheric pressure so cant explode.
The Rolls Royce "Modular" high pressure light water reactors are just miniaturised "Three-mile-island" reactors - still susceptible to the same Hydrogen explosion possibility as Japanese TEPCO. Not at all similar to the cheaper (half the price of the Rolls Royce gen 3 units) walk-away safe, higher temperature but near ambient pressure Liquid metal Thorium ion molten salt reactors (Gen IV T-MSR) similar to the recently opened Chinese reactor in the Gobi Desert, and the 7×500MWe ThorCon Liquid metal Thorium ion molten sodium fluoride salt burner energy converters currently in the process of Regulatory approval in Indonesia.
th-cam.com/video/smI7NdmQ7gc/w-d-xo.html Will Indonesia beat the US to have walk-away safe high temperature, near ambience pressure liquid metal Thorium ion molten sodium fluoride salt burner energy converters designed by ThorCon in Florida? Here is how far China is ahead of the US - Shame on your slack Ozzie parliament dragging it's feet on new walk-away safe Nuclear while your greenies control your energy with Mickey Mouse unrecyclable "renewables". See Also from the Jakarta ThorCon URL site below. Also - China has been researching TMSRs for15 years at least and their chief Nuclear Engineer on the Gobi Desert TMSR is now working for the Florida based ThorCon on Indonesia's 7×500MWe liquid Thorium metal ion molten sodium fluoride salt burner energy converters who's first thermal test is about 12 months away in Surabaya. No down payment to Indonesia Full Construction cost to ThorCon (for first 65m×180m double hulled, 500MWe base loader or automatically load following unit, built in an Asian bulk-carrier shipbuilding yard), is $1200/kiloWatt, (including being towed to it's Indonesian site where it will be fueled up). Local cost to Indonesia is for hooking it up to the Grid. PPA agreement shows expected pre-profit running cost closs to $30 per MegaWatt.hour, (includes, levelised base load costs, routine maintenance, manpower, security, fuel salts and four yearly periodic maintenance of ancillary generating equipment as well as replacing the reactor pot with new graphite). Cost to consumers will be less than seven cents per kiloWatt.hour in 2020 prices. For a better understanding of how the 500MWe ThorCon works visit the 5th training session at - th-cam.com/video/q3v3L5FQSJI/w-d-xo.html PPS. (Checkout TH-cam - more info on Thorium from Gordon McDowell Thorium)
The difference is the length of time it will take to gain an operating license. The RR system is based on proven technology for which there is a wealth of knowledge and experience (though you might want to look up the differences between Gen II and Gen III technology). As such, it should be relatively straightforward to demonstrate compliance with current licensing legislation. Molten salt reactors, for all their advantages going forward, will require new licensing procedures and new test regimes to prove compliance.
MrVaticanrag. Yes, you are correct, RR propose light water reactors as used in the subs. They do not have the benefits of future 4th gen reactors. T-MSR fast breeder reactors are a gold standard (huge waste reduction with shortened half-life, low pressure operation, inherent safety etc) but we have to wait maybe 5-10 years for these to become established. I suspect nuclear still remains the safest for of energy generation in terms of overall lives lost and 3+ Gen reactors have numerous safety benefits over earlier generations and should not be equated with 3 M-I etc. The serious issue with nuclear remains capital cost. The industry must quickly move away from building one-off plants and move to safer and faster pre-fab construction.
@@bobthebomb1596I understand that Indonesia's PPA agreement with ThorCon requires the completion of ony two more Regularitory stages: 1) the electrified thermal molten salt (but non nuclear) mockup of an actual nuclear reactor, with all its supporting ancillary equipment including the primary heat exchanger, and successfully tested for a full range of specified critical scenarios (currently delayed a year due to Covid-19); and consequently providing approval to commence construction and equiping of the barge-like 65m×180m double hulled structure in an Asian bulk-carrier shipbuilding yard. (Expected cost to ThorCon $1200/kiloWatt) 2: the site preparation by Indonesia and delivery and permanent mooring and ballasting of the ThorCon first fully functioning unit; fueled up and tested as agreed for final acceptance. The permanent hooking up to the grid should be within a maximum period of a further two years from approval for construction go-ahead. (Expected pre-profit levelised base load cost including maintainence, staff, fuel salts, and four yearly periodic maintenance of ancillary equipment and recycled reactor core fitted with new graphite is about $30 per MegaWatt.hour in 2020 prices)
There’s a lot of misconceptions out there by the public who think Rolls Royce, who manufacture Gas turbines, Nuclear Reactors and Jet engines, and now electrical powered planes, etc is German owned just because BMW owns RR Cars. They are two separate entities now, one is British, and the other is German. But both companies use the same iconic branding to sell their innovative products to the world.
I am a climate change agnostic, but this excites me, if only because oil and coal cause degradation of the environment. If this technology is as efficient as indicated, and is safe, we need to implement it ahead of solar and wind.
The harsh reality is that there is simply no prospect of meeting the 700GW capacity Finkel has estimated will be needed to sustain the Australian economy with net zero emmissions beyond 2050 using renewables. Nuclear will be an essential part of the mix. Most countries, India, China, Indonesia, UK, Canada are getting on with it. The sooner Australia does likewise, the better. The alternative is a recipe for poverty and primitiveness.
What do you mean allow it, the us owns massive areas in south Australia for exactly that uranium mining and waste storage, how's this it doesn't even have to be our waste
Unfortunately the SMR's built to date have been absolute failures. Either they don't work or on a MWH perspective they are too costly. Murdock peddling this propaganda is laughable.
Tell Albanese Labor had the chance decades ago when Hawke BANNED uranium mining in Australia ... then immediately announced the '3 uranium mines policy' ... there were only 3. NO CRED, LABOR.
I worked for RR Nuclear and can vouch for the fact it is the best, safest technology on the planet bar none. ( and I was a professional quality trouble-shooter).
Unfortunately Europe is not a fan of nuclear power. Austria has a €1 billion nuclear power station it cannot open. Outside of France it is not popular. Here in the UK I think we will see large scale protests against them.
I've been suggesting exactly this for 25 years - wow looks like there some sense out there after all.
Rolls Royce produce the nuclear power plant for the latest UK nuclear submarines. The UK subs are fuelled once and designed for 25 years without refuelling. The latest French nuclear subs by comparison have to be refuelled after 10 years. Rolls Royce are advanced and experienced in this branch of power generation. The UK subs have been performing since the 60's after the USA assisted by providing design and plans to the UK. Hopefully we will see this solution deployed by 2030. Not often the UK government and civil servants support the UK but they seem to have done the right thing here for once.....
Well,it is not as if UK hadn't helped us out with different technologies, like jet engines and radar.
Paul Bedichek well said Paul. Yes the UK has shared technology in aircraft and defence and it clearly made sense to do so. Unfortunately our communist penetrated post war government pushed RR to sell a jet engine to the Russians who then reverse engineered it and built the MIG which shot down a lot of US phantoms. I don't think the USA trusted the UK government after that. It will be interesting to see how AUKUS plays out as it has been another good and strong decision by a UK government. If we prepare for war we may avert it, if we don't it will come with a lot more destruction and misery than WWII, Australia is in the front line, NZ are the type of liberals aggressive expansionist facist regimes like but the Aussie spirit is calling them out and making a stand we have to support.
I saw something recently where Rolls Royce and Elon Musk's SpaceX are working together on nuclear propelled rockets. SpaceX and NASA are working together also from what I hear. I think the US and UK are ahead of the game with nuclear subs.
eww water coolant, molten salt is musch safer and more efficient
@@samuelforsyth6374 Right, molten salt is safer. As long as the water can't leak out though it's pretty safe. As long as it don't leak out. I learned recently the Oak Ridge Laboratory was working on molten salt reactors in the 50's and 60's. There were some problems though and it got shelved. Cheap coal and gas and oil was part of the problem I suppose.
Once you accept nuclear there is no case for solar or wind.
Also Rolls Royce is not a start up - they are serious players.
Exactly. I hate when the nuclear industry sells their products with arguments like "it's a perfect complement to intermittent reliables".
No. intermittent, weather-dependent power is pure garbage. All it does is increase the cost of the grid and makes the reliable power sources run less efficiently.
@@phamnuwen9442 god I wish there was a love button on TH-cam. I’ve had so many arguments with renewables zealots where I put this exact point and their response always amounts to nothing more than “nucular bad! Hur de hur de hur......”🙄🙄😕
@@Glenrok Unreliables, EV's and the entire climate-industrial movement is really a religion. They simply don't care about facts that contradict their religious dogma (and their 100% TSLA stock portfolio).
@@phamnuwen9442 sigh, you’re preaching to the converted here. I’m not myself totally against EV’s, but while ever we lack a reliable & adequate energy supply to charge the damn things they can never be feasible. A shame so many people are lost in their utopian dream they’re unable to grasp that.......
@@Glenrok I'm not against EV's being legal to build and drive. I'm just against having the government forcing them down our throats with subsidies and de facto criminalization of fossil fuels and internal combustion.
Even China thinks solar is crap and they build all the worlds solar panels!
Yuth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
According to Elon Musk, 100 square miles of Solar Panels can power the entire USA without any other sources of energy. He is the richest man in the world...
@@eMemoryCard Elon is lying to you. Solar power is an intermittent power source, and he isn't considering the vast amount of batteries that would be required to transform the unreliable solar output into a reliable and affordable resource.
Only for liberal americans!
Its very profitable, ask Hunter and THE BIG GUY!
@@eMemoryCard he is a lying sack of shit as well as the world’s richest man
Great idea!
We are geologically stable, we have vast amounts of land, Australia is the perfect place for nuclear power.
The Rolls Royce SMRs come with a seismic isolation platform under the nuclear island so they should be able to withstand fairly significant instability. There is not a huge amount of concrete involved, either, since the isolation vessel is a very thick steel construction.
Nuclear doesn't need any land. Hundreds of times less than unreliables.
Except that we will not need them for decades and fusion will be ready before then. The UK has run out of economic carbon energy reserves so their push for nuclear makes sense, however they are also being shifty bstards and trying to force them onto other nations such as Australia when we still have a trillion dollars worth of reserves waiting to be used. If we let the UK and others get away with their fake climate scam we will be a lot poorer and they will be richer, and that is what it is really about, yet again economically plundering Australia.
@@DanielSMatthewsThe UK has huge coal reserves. It also has sufficient gas for over a hundred years with fracking. Fusion is always only 30 years in the future.
@@peterd788 You are a fool or a liar _16 May 2014 - The UK's proven reserves of oil, coal and gas will run out in little more than five years, a report looking at energy resources warns._
I reside in the uk and I’m always amazed by the sensible news pieces that I get on UTube. Why is it that, particularly this one about SMR with Mr Samson from Rolls Royce, is not aired on uk sky or any other media output.
You will be paying for Hinkley Point C for decades to come. No point scaring you with even greater costs to meet globalist anti human demands.
Because it is a propaganda piece for a lie. The first set of 10 will be done in 2030, at that rate its useless to transition away from fossil fuels.
If Rolls Royce manages to pull this off it will be a marvel of British engineering.
And that would annoy the French to no end
Huth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
Such ignorance.
The original technology for submarine reactors came from the US whereas France developed them independently.
I thought the French like nuclear so much that they are shutting them down.
@@donnairn3419 That is the Germans
@@donnairn3419 Macron has reversed the decision to close them down to 50% of the energy generation.
We have our own uranium here in Australia,
it makes sense to go nuclear?...
Okth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
Only problem with nuclear is no one wants a plant near them
@@JR-km4gt I would have no issue living near to a nuclear reactor.
@@bobthebomb1596 I would, but it’s unlikely to happen… I live nr Byron Bay
Keep the momentum going and Australia should have nuclear powered generated electricity sooner than later
“Nuclear powered generated electricity” Is there sufficient genetic diversity in your family?
Yuth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
Why not have nuclear energy in Australia? Come on it’s science not the boogie man!!! Many are scared because of Chernobyl but that’s like not flying because of an air crash!!
Tell them to fund thorium reactors or nuclear fussion you cant solve the climate issue without figuring out the power issue.
If we put as much effort in developing and developing nuclear energy as we do this whole carbon is the enemy of the people bullshit we would have it, thorium for now and fussion soon after. But hey thanks for killing capalism and all the fussion startups government really fucking helps thanks crony capalism and fuck the socialist and central banks.
If We we didn't have government constantly bailing out gas and killing nuclear we would be in a much better place hell get rid of all nuclear regulations where fucked if we dont so fuck it
@@CatsRock11000
Nuclear Fusion is probably 50 years or so away: basically the end game. But I agree multiple countries should find LFTR, it will be carbon neutral, make sustainable renewable, and make a country energy independent.
Brilliant idea. These are the way of the future if we want affordable energy
Yuth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
Yes, affordable energy in theory, but certainly an increase in cancers, and in the event of mismanagement or carelessness we end up with more nuclear waste with lifespans of infinity.
@@marjoriedevine9051 a pilot gets more radiation per year than someone working at a reactor, the longer a halflife is the less dangerous it is... if you are a luddite that is fine but your fear of the unknown is holding everyone back
you know the uranium is just in soil normaly right? even seawater has uranium in it
@@marjoriedevine9051 Here we go, someone with ZERO knowledge of the industry who wants to parrot the lies she so ignorantly accepted as fact! Research molten salt reactors if you want to learn how safe it is and you will be pleasantly surprised by what you will learn! Just dont get your facts from fake news or someone who is funded or endorsed by the oil and gas industry or you wont get the truth!
Not if but when we have this sort of energy here I hope Tasmania will be the starting point. Not that I live there but to stick it to the greens.
Tasmania is already self sufficient on renewables. Why would they get rid of them for a more expensive energy source with no benefits?
Coal or nuclear for stable power, pick one. (Or let’s have both, even better🤷♂️😉)
Tuth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
@Wes Parsons
Climate Delusion: The false and delusional belief that mans effects on the earth’s climate are significant and dangerous.
The carbon dioxide emissions are actually beneficial as plants are currently on a starvation diet.
The Nuclear Power is Unsafe Delusion: The false and delusional belief that nuclear power plants are dangerous. Nuclear power is safer than rooftop solar which in turn is safer than coal.
Absolutely 👍
@@johngeier8692 Pearls before swine, my friend. As you say Co2 is beneficial as without it life on Earth would simply not exist, certainly not as we know it. But, true we are presently CO2 IMPOVERISHED. Atnospheric equilibrium will be maintained one way or the other, scientists do know the CO2 hypothesis is nonsense, but if you wish to keep your position and continuous grants backed by goverment, then you must follow the mantra. Think or speak outside the box, and the gravy train stops. Money talks, unfortunately
@@johngeier8692 Anthracite Coal, which is used in Australia's modern power plants is highly efficient, produces maximum thermal output, is virtually emissions free, can provide 24/7 base load, is not dependent on external conditions, can be located anywhere at considerable distance from the consumer and are operational for decades longer than alternatives . They do not produce hazardous waste materials and have little impact on wildlife or vegetation after construction.
In contrast, Roof top solar solar power is intermittent, unreliable, is dependent on location and weather conditions and requires battery banks or supplementation generated from gas or coal. Most concerning is their relatively short useful life and end of life disposal as solar panels and batteries categorized
Great interview. Pragmatic questions and fact filled answers. Ty. 470MW powers about 75k homes btw.
Okth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
Apart from this story, the good thing is that nuclear power is now in the ascendancy in terms of public opinion in Australia. Bring it on.
Cool so we can discares wind and solar which are currently available, the cheapest energy sources for an island with the majority of its population on windy coast lines and with most of the land mass experiencing consistent sunshine?
Nuclear makes no sense in Australia and the only reason its being pushed is to slow the uptake of renewables and continue the use of fossil fuels.
Even Bill Gates is getting involved in developing & building small modular nuclear reactors for US power generation.
Definitely a future i support.
Net zero push is to help facilitate more transfer of wealth to the rich
Rhth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
The sooner it happens the better
Unless you all want to be in the dark in a couple of years
Plth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
Great fear mongering, just like Sky News taught you
Interesting how one season of “Wind Drought” change the minds of most of the alarmists.
What season? Where was it? How much did it change generation?
I guarantee you cant answer these questions.
@@bertthompson4748 I replied several times with the data link.
@@bertthompson4748 I guess it disappears instantly because it contains good information to the contrary of their narrative.
@@hermanvanniekerk1270 can you guess how far we can move power? Maybe from australia to singapore for instance?
Australia has always been late for the boat when it comes to technology. And Australian politicians always been the blame for it. They won't learn from it. They continue to be the last ones to arrive. They sometimes miss the boat too. Depriving Australia because of their ignorance..They need to change this attitude.
SMR technology along with MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) technology makes perfect sense for zero carbon base load power. The only real problem is the (undeservedly) bad name that nuclear has gotten over the years. The new reactors are safe, small and efficient. I hope governments start investing more in these technologies and stop throwing all their (our) money at solar and wind.
No, the problem is the economics, time to build and the fact we dont need baseload
Youd throw more money at nuclear according to its build costs and LCOE
Great interview... achievable technology that can really suit Oz. 👌
Guth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
Why not have nuclear energy in Australia? Come on it’s science not the boogie man!!! Many are scared because of Chernobyl but that’s like not flying because of an air crash!!
@@mikespike2099 the economics is the best reason not to have nuclear. Time to build is also very important. Safety only matters in the abstract but its still a negative for nuclear.
Brilliant and very Good News - still Australia has to have Coal and Gas also in the Mix !!!!
Guth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
@@getyuth The World is Building 1600 New Coal Fired Power Stations in 62 Countries since 2019 - this Data is from Urgewalt in Germany !!!!
great we can eat more meat cooked on an elec stove and drive our cars longer, imagine the tree huggers listening to this ahhhhhhh meltdown
Add to consideration the ThorCon molten salt reactors.. or (radical suggestion) design some of our own based on Gen IV technologies. Either way, abolish the moratorium on all nuclear power generation now!
Thth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
Nuclear is the cleanest most efficient energy on earth in regards to output yield vs environmental impact
true
This looks very positive and realistic. Good to see govmt is supporting development. If they can use nuclear in submarines. above ground use should be a doddle.GREAT AND GOOD NEWS.
Olth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
If the climate alarmists are fair dinkum they would be grabbing this with both hands as the perfect addition to the renewable arsenal required to maintain a growth in industries and lifestyle and reduce carbon emissions within their preferred timeline, sadly Im sure they will can this this in order to keep their alarmism alive
No way. Nuclear would take a decade to build. In that time we could reach almost entirely renewable energy in australia.
Yes, you'd think the alarmists would be all over the SMR's. But they don't seem to be. Subsidizing wind and solar which doesn't seem to be a good solution. At least for now. Not consistent enough and then there's the problem with storing the energy. I think all their talk is politically motivated.
@@danielhanawalt4998 engage with the time to build champ. 10yrs to get a dozen reactors? How is that going to transition us away from fossil fuels?
@@bertthompson4748 Champ? I'm a champion now? What's your next trigger word?
@@danielhanawalt4998 cant engage still. Im waiting.
Hell yeah, lets have some of that!
It's a no brainer,the Aussies should go for this once they overcome the paranoid shudders many of them have at the mere mention of the term 'nuclear'.
Check out Moltex who are going through regulatory approval for a molten salt reactor. Their current version burns used nuke fuel solving the long term storage issue. It also fully burns the fuel so needs much less to give the same total power output.
It's really great. But coal is cheaper, easier and much more abundant than U 235. Hydrocarbons still has a big place in energy production and transport fuels... However, develop a Thorium cycle and then we really are talking about a real solution to future energy needs. But in the interim, Australia needs a nuclear industry so that we can gain technological expertise in this industry. As it stands we have very little experience with nuclear energy. These would help develop that. We have one of the world's largest reserves of Uranium, it behooves us to develop ourselves to its uses along its entire chain, from mining, to manufacturing, to reprocessing and storage.
Tuth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
Fast spectrum breeder reactors can utilise U238, thus extending the availability of uranium as a fuel.
Good to see people are assessing all new options.
Okth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
Lithuania had a modern fully functional clean nuclear power station. The EU insisted that if Lithuania wanted to join the must immediately shut down this nuclear station, effectively forcing them to burn coal instead. Politicians (like Labor) and bureaucrats frequently make stupid decisions.
I love the idea.
*Firstly the comment about Uranium mining - SMR's DONT USE URANIUM. They use thorium which can't be processed to make nuclear bombs*
Australian government should also have Bechtel Corporation into the SMR study and make them bid on contracts.
A1B reactor on Ford Aircraft Carrier could pull up now and power a small city.
About bloody time! 1kg Uranium produces the equivalent power of 2,700,000 kg of coal, it's a no brainer
Labor is so backward thinking. Won’t use mine uranium but Australia is already mining exporting and then storing depleted uranium in Australia. So why not use it as well. Think about it. If Australia used nuclear power we could have a lot of automated factories powered by them and start to manufacture again.
This is a huge thing I hope india too follow behind uk too
Good, finally some meaningful technology
Our military here in the US is already deploying small reactors that can fit in a cargo plane and be delivered on a truck to power military installations in rough areas. They've been testing some in Alaska and a couple other places. Not a totally new thing they had some similar in the 50's but I think they had limitations or there were concerns about disposal of spent fuel. These new ones only have to be refueled every ten years or so.
Clean energy is the obvious way to go. Wake up Australia 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
It's such an obvious way to go. SMRs are safe and relatively cheap to produce. My only concern is, why aren't we moving faster on this? The design has every failsafe you could think of, nuclear fuel will be stored onsite to power the reactor for 60 years of continuous use. Within a decade or two fusion will be a reality. We need these built now and at scale. It'll secure power globally with no safety risks. You can even bury them if the anti-nuclear lobby has concerns. Let's get on with it quickly and sell to the world.
This is a no brainer
That CEO is a weird fish ......... seemed like he was not conscious of the camera and was trying to multi-task during the interview, perhaps he's an engineer, which would explain a lot.
Aussie is perfect for Nuclear Power, geologically stable, plenty of room to store waste, go for it.
"plenty of room to store waste"
This is the second comment making the argument that Australia is suitable for nuclear "because there's plenty of room (land)".
This makes zero sense, because nuclear hardly needs any land at all. The reactors have a tiny footprint relative to their power output, and the waste volumes are equally miniscule.
Nuclear waste can feed into a fast-breeder nuclear reactor, hence reducing the nuclear waste.
@@valenrn8657 It certainly can, but the waste from current reactors is already very limited in quantity, so there isn't really major waste problem. It's just something the anti-nukes make up to stop the technology.
To be honest I am not a fan of nuclear but in order to move on this sounds a good starting point. All we hear from climate activists is, stop this, do away with that, end the next thing. What we don't get are ideas with what to replace them for the future. This man seems to me to really know what he is talking about and this is surely one way to go for our future.
Why don't you like nuclear? It's reasonably affordable, extremely reliable, doesn't emit any pollution, and the reactor types we use in the civilized world (the West) have never killed a single person.
@@phamnuwen9442 Technically none of the reactors have. There are still 9 RMBK reactors (the same design used in that one accident) operational, one has an in operation date up to at least 2034 (45 yrs old), 2 were shut down in the last 2 years. One of Chernobyl's was still operational until 2000, but politics and money. There are at least 48 plants with at least one BWR reactor (many have two, some have three) (the same design of the reactor damaged during the earthquake). There are 100+ (400+) PWRs around the world (the same design of the 1979 accident). Even with these accidents fewer people have/will die compared to any other energy. Dams bust. Gas is dangerous. Coal pollutes. Solar can result in deforestation and flooding. Wind can cause forest fires, change wind patterns, and kill predatory birds. The worst that happens with nuclear is you might get thyroid cancer which has a 99% survival rate (in other words the worst case scenario for nuclear puts it just below coal).
@@namename9998 I agree that even the garbage reactors the communists built didn't kill many people in the overall context of energy production, but they did kill a couple of hundred with Chernobyl. Western reactors by contrast never killed a single person.
And the big problem with unreliables isn't that they kill raptors and destroy the landscape (bad as that is) but that they can't produce reliable, affordable power.
The only problem with nuclear is that the anti-industrial environmentalists have been extremely successful indoctrinating the people of the world with an unscientific and irrational fear of radiation.
@@phamnuwen9442 And even with Chernobyl, they purposely put the reactor into 'meltdown' at least the start of it.
@@kingcosworth2643 Yep. A machine designed by socialists, operated by socialists. The worst possible combination, yet still very few casualties, all things considered.
The Banqiao hydro dam collapse in China is an interesting comparison since it killed 3 orders of magnitude more people. Nuclear power is unbelievably safe.
It's a shame that our politicians are so ignorant on nuclear power
Yes! Modular nuclear now!
this is fantastic!
Nuclear is the only thing on the horizon that can replace coal over the next 25 years and 470MW is a good size as that can provide power for 800,000 to 1 million people.
Hjth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
@@buildmotosykletist1987 I think in Australia it will take a little longer but it should still be gone there in a couple of decades for power generation.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 That's why I specifically said for power generation. Coal is still the go to material for steel production and that will remain the case for some time.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 A second option (Peter has one, you have the other) "Abstract. The assessment have been carried out on Nuclear Hydrogen Cogeneration System (NHCS) applications for the steel industry. The steel industry is an industry that requires large amounts of energy which has implications for large amounts of CO2 emissions to the environment. The NHCS application is expected to be able to reduce the use of fossil fuels which automatically can also reduce the rate of CO2 emissions. The objectives is to understand the process of the NHCS as a source of heat energy, hydrogen and the electricity that can be used for the steel industry. The method used in this study is the study of literature. The development of the process of reducing iron ore into iron sponges that allows hydrogen to be used as a reducing agent, opens the opportunity for the use of NHCS to replace fossil fuels as a conventional energy source. NHCS is a high temperature nuclear reactor based cogeneration system as a source of energy. NHCS is able to provide large amounts of heat, electricity and hydrogen energy. The heat output of High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) at high temperatures is used to produce hydrogen, and is used as a heat source for shaft furnaces. While electrical energy is used for energy sources in electric arc furnaces. The replacement of conventional technology based on fossil fuels with the NHCS system is expected to be able to save on the use of fossil fuels, which will have implications for the significant reduction in the rate of CO2 emissions." The Assessment of Nuclear Hydrogen Cogeneration System Application for Steel Industry
https aip.scitation. org /doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5135547
Great stuff. Seems like their goal of 2 reactors per year is way too low. They need to get that up to 1 per week and with a efficient production line drastically reduce unit cost.
So in 30 years itll be possible to meet demand?
Why not just use the cheaper, readily available and east to build renewables?
@@bertthompson4748 Currently natural gas turbines are kept spinning and their steam up even when your renewables are producing electricity. This is because steam turbines take some time to get going. Then when the sun goes down or the wind stops blowing the natural gas turbines are sped up. This is highly wasteful and will get even more inefficient as more renewables are added.
Industrial solar and wind are not as inexpensive as their propaganda says. If they were, why do they require subsidies, mandates and get very high wholesale prices over other sources. Here in CA utilities pay around 4¢/KWH, but industrial wind and solar get paid 11¢/KWH.
Get fracking too,I’ve had enough of this zero carbon bollocks.. I do NOT want to become greener,poorer and colder!
Finally some real environmental solutions instead of useless wind and solar power
40% of the world's uranium reserves are in Australia. The outback is a prime candidate for a long time save nuclear waste repository.
Wow ....this sounds really good.
I worked at SJGS in Farmington and this is a perfect opportunity to use this technology
SMR'S are the best answer for green energy.
Canada is also working on an SMR in New Brunswick . An American company is involved . I think it’s to eventually replace an existing CANDU reactor. I also understand that some SMRs will run on spent nuclear fuel.
Let’s hope this technology spreads rapidly.
Don’t be left in the dust.
Just 1 of these reactors provides more power over a full year than the World's 2 biggest offshore windfarms. Cost £1 billion v £6 billion for wind!
And no wind drought or high wind to shut down temporary but permanent up.
GOOOD! SMRs FINALLY COMING TO THE MARKET
Very good but Rolls Royce need to use a Thorium fuel cycle not a uranium one. Because uranium is a finite resource and thorium isn't. Plus the waste from uranium is much harder to deal with then with thorium, and about 20 other amazing benefits of using thorium :).
470MW sounds like a sensible, logical size for a modular factory built alternative. A combination of renewables, storage and a handful of small nuclear would be more viable than any other option I have seen to date. Until we have a genuinely environmentally friendly storage technology, we really are better off sticking with coal... Let's not try to fix something by creating a worse problem. If we use the profits/taxes from coal in the next couple of years to fund real innovation, we could actually make a difference...
To ith-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
I don't see the need for renewables once you accept nuclear as an acceptable power source. Wind/solar delivers 30% of rated capacity on average over the year. 70% would have to come from nuclear. That means for every 470MW of wind/solar installed you need 470MW of nuclear as well. So why bother installing wind/solar, just run nuclear all the time.
You need to plan for at least a week of no wind or adequate sunshine. I would suggest that Storage is nowhere near mature enough for that and when you get to needing days of storage it will probably be way too expensive.
I agree with what you’re saying, but I still think it’s good to have a diversity of generation sources, which I think is more relevant than focusing on the supposedly green sources that aren’t really that green.
470MW (e or t)? Enough heat to melt down if there is a cooling failure and not to big as to be ridiculously expensive. Now we just need water.
@@davidbuderim2395 haha. Tell that to tasmania which is now energy independent with renewables.
Why don't we just breed loads of hamsters and build loads of wheels for the them to run in?
Small Nuclear Modular Reactors need to built in mass ---> YESTERDAY!
Great stuff. Nuclear is the way is to go!
We don't know how expensive electricity from SMRs will be. We will have to wait until we have had years of use at large scale.
I`m not afraid either. Never have been. Only Labor and the stupid Greens are.
The sooner the better
The trouble with SMRs is that they are still pressured water reactors and do have a small risk of failing and exploding. Molten Salt Reactors do not have these problems like Elysium's Industry Sodium Chloride Molten Salt FAST reactor, which consumes spent nuclear fuel , are already molten so can't melt down, runs at almost atmospheric pressure so cant explode.
Ideal to power a green hydrogen plant in UK where solar is less than efficient,
Can order ten to start with please?
The Rolls Royce "Modular" high pressure light water reactors are just miniaturised "Three-mile-island" reactors - still susceptible to the same Hydrogen explosion possibility as Japanese TEPCO. Not at all similar to the cheaper (half the price of the Rolls Royce gen 3 units) walk-away safe, higher temperature but near ambient pressure Liquid metal Thorium ion molten salt reactors (Gen IV T-MSR) similar to the recently opened Chinese reactor in the Gobi Desert, and the 7×500MWe ThorCon Liquid metal Thorium ion molten sodium fluoride salt burner energy converters currently in the process of Regulatory approval in Indonesia.
Okth-cam.com/video/UdvCfqfjp-4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/smI7NdmQ7gc/w-d-xo.html
Will Indonesia beat the US to have walk-away safe high temperature, near ambience pressure liquid metal Thorium ion molten sodium fluoride salt burner energy converters designed by ThorCon in Florida?
Here is how far China is ahead of the US -
Shame on your slack Ozzie parliament dragging it's feet on new walk-away safe Nuclear while your greenies control your energy with Mickey Mouse unrecyclable "renewables".
See Also from the Jakarta ThorCon URL site below.
Also - China has been researching TMSRs for15 years at least and their chief Nuclear Engineer on the Gobi Desert TMSR is now working for the Florida based ThorCon on Indonesia's 7×500MWe liquid Thorium metal ion molten sodium fluoride salt burner energy converters who's first thermal test is about 12 months away in Surabaya.
No down payment to Indonesia
Full Construction cost to ThorCon (for first 65m×180m double hulled, 500MWe base loader or automatically load following unit, built in an Asian bulk-carrier shipbuilding yard), is $1200/kiloWatt, (including being towed to it's Indonesian site where it will be fueled up).
Local cost to Indonesia is for hooking it up to the Grid. PPA agreement shows expected pre-profit running cost closs to $30 per MegaWatt.hour, (includes, levelised base load costs, routine maintenance, manpower, security, fuel salts and four yearly periodic maintenance of ancillary generating equipment as well as replacing the reactor pot with new graphite).
Cost to consumers will be less than seven cents per kiloWatt.hour in 2020 prices.
For a better understanding of how the 500MWe ThorCon works visit the 5th training session at -
th-cam.com/video/q3v3L5FQSJI/w-d-xo.html
PPS. (Checkout TH-cam - more info on Thorium from Gordon McDowell Thorium)
The difference is the length of time it will take to gain an operating license.
The RR system is based on proven technology for which there is a wealth of knowledge and experience (though you might want to look up the differences between Gen II and Gen III technology). As such, it should be relatively straightforward to demonstrate compliance with current licensing legislation.
Molten salt reactors, for all their advantages going forward, will require new licensing procedures and new test regimes to prove compliance.
MrVaticanrag. Yes, you are correct, RR propose light water reactors as used in the subs. They do not have the benefits of future 4th gen reactors. T-MSR fast breeder reactors are a gold standard (huge waste reduction with shortened half-life, low pressure operation, inherent safety etc) but we have to wait maybe 5-10 years for these to become established. I suspect nuclear still remains the safest for of energy generation in terms of overall lives lost and 3+ Gen reactors have numerous safety benefits over earlier generations and should not be equated with 3 M-I etc. The serious issue with nuclear remains capital cost. The industry must quickly move away from building one-off plants and move to safer and faster pre-fab construction.
@@bobthebomb1596I understand that Indonesia's PPA agreement with ThorCon requires the completion of ony two more Regularitory stages:
1) the electrified thermal molten salt (but non nuclear) mockup of an actual nuclear reactor, with all its supporting ancillary equipment including the primary heat exchanger, and successfully tested for a full range of specified critical scenarios (currently delayed a year due to Covid-19); and consequently providing approval to commence construction and equiping of the barge-like 65m×180m double hulled structure in an Asian bulk-carrier shipbuilding yard. (Expected cost to ThorCon $1200/kiloWatt)
2: the site preparation by Indonesia and delivery and permanent mooring and ballasting of the ThorCon first fully functioning unit; fueled up and tested as agreed for final acceptance.
The permanent hooking up to the grid should be within a maximum period of a further two years from approval for construction go-ahead.
(Expected pre-profit levelised base load cost including maintainence, staff, fuel salts, and four yearly periodic maintenance of ancillary equipment and recycled reactor core fitted with new graphite is about $30 per MegaWatt.hour in 2020 prices)
There’s a lot of misconceptions out there by the public who think Rolls Royce, who manufacture Gas turbines, Nuclear Reactors and Jet engines, and now electrical powered planes, etc is German owned just because BMW owns RR Cars. They are two separate entities now, one is British, and the other is German. But both companies use the same iconic branding to sell their innovative products to the world.
It’s a no brainer, the technology is fucking amazing!
I am a climate change agnostic, but this excites me, if only because oil and coal cause degradation of the environment. If this technology is as efficient as indicated, and is safe, we need to implement it ahead of solar and wind.
Solar takes up too much room
Green party will be mad about that ))))))))))))) that alone makes it worth to try
Finally,, about time. Australia should be world leader in this. Uranium, or even better (safer) is Thorium.
Need some nuclear in Aus. Probably in the north of the country so the power can be exported to Singapore, Malaysia etc
Rolls Royce have been in the nuclear industry for many years, certainly since 1966 when I accidentally went to the wrong gate in their complex.
The harsh reality is that there is simply no prospect of meeting the 700GW capacity Finkel has estimated will be needed to sustain the Australian economy with net zero emmissions beyond 2050 using renewables. Nuclear will be an essential part of the mix.
Most countries, India, China, Indonesia, UK, Canada are getting on with it. The sooner Australia does likewise, the better.
The alternative is a recipe for poverty and primitiveness.
Wind power is nice but unreliable
Solar only good for daytime use, when it's cloudy power output drops
Shhhhh stop making sense
Brilliant video Sky News:
1) Low cost
2) Deliverable
3) Global and scalable
4) Invest able
That CEO looks pretty intense. Busy man I bet.
SMRs are a great idea seriously! If you think Solar or Wind is the answer your delusional.
Agree
Great interview
What do you mean allow it, the us owns massive areas in south Australia for exactly that uranium mining and waste storage, how's this it doesn't even have to be our waste
60 pounds per hour is to much. Come on guys. Regular nuclear is around 25.
Unfortunately the SMR's built to date have been absolute failures. Either they don't work or on a MWH perspective they are too costly. Murdock peddling this propaganda is laughable.
Tell Albanese Labor had the chance decades ago when Hawke BANNED uranium mining in Australia ... then immediately announced the '3 uranium mines policy' ... there were only 3. NO CRED, LABOR.
I worked for RR Nuclear and can vouch for the fact it is the best, safest technology on the planet bar none. ( and I was a professional quality trouble-shooter).
Unfortunately Europe is not a fan of nuclear power. Austria has a €1 billion nuclear power station it cannot open. Outside of France it is not popular. Here in the UK I think we will see large scale protests against them.
More than 16% because the UK relies on French electricity which is about 50% nuclear
It would be good if jersey had its own energy supply.
Can't wait. I've been investing in rolls royce since 2020. They still haven't bounced back yet but when they do. Nice returns for investors.
Apparently an easy plug in to present grid with minimal change.
Westinghouse been building SMR since 1953 USS Nautilus S2W
Rolls Royce cars are not the same as Rolls Royce aero engines, they are different companies all together.