SMR are needed to combat climate change. Any agenda/solution to confront climate change that does not include nuclear power are not serious proposals. SMRs are a good idea. We need more of them.
SMRs unless they are based on molten salt still face challenges with radioactive waste, low fuel efficiency, and the risks associated with high-pressure reactor vessels. While SMRs can serve as a short-term solution, Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) are considered a more promising mid-term solution due to their potential to address these issues more comprehensively. Hopefully, we will have fusion by the time we run out of uranium and thorium. The differences between Light Water Reactors (LWR) and Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (TMSR) are significant in fuel utilization and waste production. LWRs use approximately 0.5-1% of uranium fuel, leading to the generation of long-lived radioactive waste due to inefficient energy conversion and the use of enriched uranium. In contrast, TMSRs can achieve fuel efficiency of up to 99%. This is achieved by converting fertile thorium-232 into fissile uranium-233, substantially reducing waste production and more manageable radioactive waste. Uranium Molten Salt Reactors (UMSR) are just as effective as TMSRs. 800 kg of natural thorium in a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) can generate 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity for one year. In comparison, generating the same amount of energy in an LWR would require mining 250 tons of uranium. In an MSR, the storage requirement for 800 kg of spent fuel is 300 years, whereas in a LWR, 35 tons of spent fuel need storage for 300,000 years. MSRs can utilize the spent fuel from LWRs. A coal power station will need to burn 4.55 million tons of coal and emit 13 million tons of carbon dioxide to produce the same amount of energy for one year. That amount of coal contains 4 to 18 tons of uranium, 13 to 68 tons of thorium, and 4 to 45 tons of arsenic. Of the six proposed fourth-generation nuclear reactor types, the MSR is the only type that does not generate substantial amounts of plutonium. The fissile uranium-233 produced by the MSR is difficult to use for weapons because of the presence of highly radioactive uranium-232. MSRs can adjust power output to match electricity demand, thanks to the inherent and automatic load-following capability provided by the fluid nature of the molten salt coolant. A key safety feature of MSR is that it automatically adjusts to prevent overheating. This is achieved through a "negative thermal reactivity coefficient," which means that as the temperature rises, the reactor's reactivity decreases, preventing a runaway chain reaction. Additionally, the MSR has a "negative void reactivity coefficient," ensuring that the reactivity decreases if there is a loss of coolant or boiling, preventing potential overheating. These safety measures help keep the reactor stable and safe under various conditions. Looking ahead to 2040, China plans to deploy Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) for desalination of seawater, hydrogen production, powering of ships equipped with Thermoacoustic Stirling Generators, and power plants with Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Turbines within its borders and globally. In the Earth's crust, thorium is nearly four times more abundant than uranium. Every atom of natural thorium can be harnessed, unlike natural uranium, where only 1 out of every 139 atoms can be used. China produces thorium as a byproduct of its rare earth processing. Similar to the trends observed with solar and wind technologies, MSR costs are anticipated to decrease with the scaling up of production and the development of robust supply chains.
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future" (2017).
What are the site requirements in terms of access to fresh water for cooling purposes? Will these require cooling towers? I’m a huge fan of the idea. Just curious to know if the RR SMR concept is limited by the same constraints as traditional site-built nuclear plants.
It has specific design elements that would make it be capable of being built in a desert environment. So no continuous surface water feed would be necessary.
Once green energy solar and wind are finally accepted as insufficient to meet our needs then nuclear will succeed. Politics supercede Engineering reality.
The fact that this is a normal pressurized reactor and will use normal fuel means all the issues still are around. Low amount of total usage of the fuel and the dangers of a high pressure reactor vessel. Molten Salt reactors are the future, this seems like RR jumping on the band wagon. Investing in this sort of system doesnt advance what humanity needs for a power reactor for the future. This is status quo
molten salt are the future need more proof of design before they are ready to build at scale. Lets get SMR working built on time and on budget. Then work on the next generation of nuclar power reactors what ever that happens to be Molten salt has my vote
@@davidhill3724 Not just "proof of design". They need corrosion resistant materials that will last decades in service. Those haven't been developed yet. They cannot begin more than a conceptual design until such materials have been developed, tested in various small scale models, and their mechanical properties determined. Could be decades.
Allan Fells, a long term Australian Government advisers, said Australia needs 5 times more electricity and so the Australian 25gW fossil fuelled generation today has to be increased 5 times if it is nuclear. The SMR like the BW300X means that Australia needs 85 x 300mW = 25.5 gW. But with no fossil fuels Australia needs 5 x 85 SMR = 425 SMRs. No gas, no petroleum, no coal. No CO2 into the atmosphere, that is the point, yes ??? No CO2 from any other country on the planet, because why waste Australian money, yes ??? SMRs are the most economical electrical generation method and mass production will make them extremely cost effective. Australia can expand its 7,000 tonnes of uranium ore extorts to 100s millions of tonnes. Money in the bank for Australia, yes. Australia in partnership with RR. $2 billion each installed and running. Ezi pezi. 5 fold increase in world demand for electricity, means Australia can also ramp up all mineral exports as our coal and gas exports ramp down.
its kind of just MR not SMR its a Modular Reactor - it being small was never a goal apart from making sure these modules would be possible to transport by roads why on earth all these presentations are always like 10 min long? as if you could possibly get into any depth with such a topic in such a short time...
I was watching a video a few days ago which mentioned that their real-term cost per MWh of electricity was about on par with conventional nuclear power plants
I'm really frustrated with this SMR community right now! 🧐 Been looking into this for over 20 years! 😒 At one point, the Agenda with our regulators looked like they were only gonna allow China to manufacture SMR concepts for the west! 🤨 I didn't trust that to be the best way to do things. And i was sure NO ONE involved had an issue with that plan. Then China let the world down in a huge way! And it took so long for our leaders to loose faith in the Chinese Nuclear Agenda. The Chinese nearly had a Plant breakdown! #DamnItAll 😤 Now these western countries are seemly scrambling say they do can do the SMR juggle without out China! 😬
I think this modularization concept is a bad idea. Fabricating main components in a factory makes sense of course, but making hundreds of blocks of container size modules doesn't bring any benefits. There will be lots of interface points (flanged joints, insulation, bolting of module frames, vibration dampening, extra isolation valves, junction boxes..) between modules to worry about. The designers are trying to avoid poor installation quality and cost overruns of rogue British contractors, but this modularity idea will create more problems than it solves. Look at refineries, petrochemical installations. They have the main equipment (huge distillation columns etc) and critical pipe spools prepared in workshop, but do the rest of installation on site.
I think you totally MISSED the point that these reactors are based on the PWR3 reactors made to fit in the new Trident Dreadnought class subs. The idea is to station these SMR's on MOD bases and wire them into the grid and they will not need refuelling for 50 YEARS. At the end of life it can simply be carted off on a lorry!!
@@nathd1748 OK make the reactor core unit(s) prefabricated in the factory in transportable size, but in this presentation (around 03:30) they're talking about making container size everything. Which is not necessary. Why would you need to modularize cooling water system, pressurized air system etc?
SMR are needed to combat climate change. Any agenda/solution to confront climate change that does not include nuclear power are not serious proposals. SMRs are a good idea. We need more of them.
SMRs unless they are based on molten salt still face challenges with radioactive waste, low fuel efficiency, and the risks associated with high-pressure reactor vessels. While SMRs can serve as a short-term solution, Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) are considered a more promising mid-term solution due to their potential to address these issues more comprehensively. Hopefully, we will have fusion by the time we run out of uranium and thorium.
The differences between Light Water Reactors (LWR) and Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (TMSR) are significant in fuel utilization and waste production. LWRs use approximately 0.5-1% of uranium fuel, leading to the generation of long-lived radioactive waste due to inefficient energy conversion and the use of enriched uranium. In contrast, TMSRs can achieve fuel efficiency of up to 99%. This is achieved by converting fertile thorium-232 into fissile uranium-233, substantially reducing waste production and more manageable radioactive waste. Uranium Molten Salt Reactors (UMSR) are just as effective as TMSRs.
800 kg of natural thorium in a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) can generate 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity for one year. In comparison, generating the same amount of energy in an LWR would require mining 250 tons of uranium. In an MSR, the storage requirement for 800 kg of spent fuel is 300 years, whereas in a LWR, 35 tons of spent fuel need storage for 300,000 years. MSRs can utilize the spent fuel from LWRs. A coal power station will need to burn 4.55 million tons of coal and emit 13 million tons of carbon dioxide to produce the same amount of energy for one year. That amount of coal contains 4 to 18 tons of uranium, 13 to 68 tons of thorium, and 4 to 45 tons of arsenic.
Of the six proposed fourth-generation nuclear reactor types, the MSR is the only type that does not generate substantial amounts of plutonium. The fissile uranium-233 produced by the MSR is difficult to use for weapons because of the presence of highly radioactive uranium-232.
MSRs can adjust power output to match electricity demand, thanks to the inherent and automatic load-following capability provided by the fluid nature of the molten salt coolant. A key safety feature of MSR is that it automatically adjusts to prevent overheating. This is achieved through a "negative thermal reactivity coefficient," which means that as the temperature rises, the reactor's reactivity decreases, preventing a runaway chain reaction. Additionally, the MSR has a "negative void reactivity coefficient," ensuring that the reactivity decreases if there is a loss of coolant or boiling, preventing potential overheating. These safety measures help keep the reactor stable and safe under various conditions.
Looking ahead to 2040, China plans to deploy Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) for desalination of seawater, hydrogen production, powering of ships equipped with Thermoacoustic Stirling Generators, and power plants with Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Turbines within its borders and globally. In the Earth's crust, thorium is nearly four times more abundant than uranium. Every atom of natural thorium can be harnessed, unlike natural uranium, where only 1 out of every 139 atoms can be used. China produces thorium as a byproduct of its rare earth processing.
Similar to the trends observed with solar and wind technologies, MSR costs are anticipated to decrease with the scaling up of production and the development of robust supply chains.
I predict that the share price of Rolls Royce Holdings plc will double in the next 2 years, when SMRs come closer to being rolled-out.
I love the concept of these SMR‘s
New electron beam welder can weld an smr in a day instead of a month
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future" (2017).
Gibberish
Get on with it! If you want a paddock to site a test unit on I've got one next to my house.
I wish they would have gone into production timeframes and availability...
Production might start in a year or 2 depending on how fast it gets approved by the nuclear authority
UK first operation aiming for 2029-2030 timeframe
Thank you for sharing!! Very informative!!
Where can i find the slides that were used in this presentation? Are they publicly available? I can't find them on their website.
When? What is the time frame? No word about that.
End of decade
I like it.
00:01 investigator is following this very compelling and informative content many thanks VK3GFS Frank 73s
What are the site requirements in terms of access to fresh water for cooling purposes? Will these require cooling towers? I’m a huge fan of the idea. Just curious to know if the RR SMR concept is limited by the same constraints as traditional site-built nuclear plants.
It has specific design elements that would make it be capable of being built in a desert environment. So no continuous surface water feed would be necessary.
Once green energy solar and wind are finally accepted as insufficient to meet our needs then nuclear will succeed. Politics supercede Engineering reality.
The fact that this is a normal pressurized reactor and will use normal fuel means all the issues still are around. Low amount of total usage of the fuel and the dangers of a high pressure reactor vessel. Molten Salt reactors are the future, this seems like RR jumping on the band wagon. Investing in this sort of system doesnt advance what humanity needs for a power reactor for the future. This is status quo
It is not what you think. It is lifted from the design of the PWR3 for the Dreadnought subs. It will not need refuelling for 50 years.
molten salt are the future need more proof of design before they are ready to build at scale. Lets get SMR working built on time and on budget. Then work on the next generation of nuclar power reactors what ever that happens to be Molten salt has my vote
@@davidhill3724
Not just "proof of design". They need corrosion resistant materials that will last decades in service. Those haven't been developed yet. They cannot begin more than a conceptual design until such materials have been developed, tested in various small scale models, and their mechanical properties determined. Could be decades.
Allan Fells, a long term Australian Government advisers, said Australia needs 5 times more electricity and so the Australian 25gW fossil fuelled generation today has to be increased 5 times if it is nuclear.
The SMR like the BW300X means that Australia needs 85 x 300mW = 25.5 gW.
But with no fossil fuels Australia needs 5 x 85 SMR = 425 SMRs.
No gas, no petroleum, no coal. No CO2 into the atmosphere, that is the point, yes ???
No CO2 from any other country on the planet, because why waste Australian money, yes ???
SMRs are the most economical electrical generation method and mass production will make them extremely cost effective.
Australia can expand its 7,000 tonnes of uranium ore extorts to 100s millions of tonnes.
Money in the bank for Australia, yes.
Australia in partnership with RR.
$2 billion each installed and running. Ezi pezi.
5 fold increase in world demand for electricity, means Australia can also ramp up all mineral exports as our coal and gas exports ramp down.
Good.
its kind of just MR not SMR
its a Modular Reactor - it being small was never a goal apart from making sure these modules would be possible to transport by roads
why on earth all these presentations are always like 10 min long?
as if you could possibly get into any depth with such a topic in such a short time...
how much does one smr cost a general figure or range
I was watching a video a few days ago which mentioned that their real-term cost per MWh of electricity was about on par with conventional nuclear power plants
Disappointing that this is a gen III reactor design. Meaning that the efficiency is not nearly as good as a gen IV.
I'm really frustrated with this SMR community right now! 🧐
Been looking into this for over 20 years! 😒 At one point, the Agenda with our regulators looked like they were only gonna allow China to manufacture SMR concepts for the west! 🤨 I didn't trust that to be the best way to do things. And i was sure NO ONE involved had an issue with that plan.
Then China let the world down in a huge way! And it took so long for our leaders to loose faith in the Chinese Nuclear Agenda. The Chinese nearly had a Plant breakdown! #DamnItAll 😤
Now these western countries are seemly scrambling say they do can do the SMR juggle without out China! 😬
No SMR electricity is 4x the price of renewables electricity. Won't happen. And RR are trying to sell RR SMR even they know.
The more of it that gets built the more the price comes down, as has happened with solar Pv
news
I think this modularization concept is a bad idea. Fabricating main components in a factory makes sense of course, but making hundreds of blocks of container size modules doesn't bring any benefits. There will be lots of interface points (flanged joints, insulation, bolting of module frames, vibration dampening, extra isolation valves, junction boxes..) between modules to worry about. The designers are trying to avoid poor installation quality and cost overruns of rogue British contractors, but this modularity idea will create more problems than it solves. Look at refineries, petrochemical installations. They have the main equipment (huge distillation columns etc) and critical pipe spools prepared in workshop, but do the rest of installation on site.
I think you totally MISSED the point that these reactors are based on the PWR3 reactors made to fit in the new Trident Dreadnought class subs. The idea is to station these SMR's on MOD bases and wire them into the grid and they will not need refuelling for 50 YEARS. At the end of life it can simply be carted off on a lorry!!
@@nathd1748 OK make the reactor core unit(s) prefabricated in the factory in transportable size, but in this presentation (around 03:30) they're talking about making container size everything. Which is not necessary. Why would you need to modularize cooling water system, pressurized air system etc?
@@kekessalman The water cooling system on a submarine is the surrounding sea water which is the missing key on the land based SMR.
@@nathd1748 and what's that got to do with modularization in this project?
Rolls Royce owned or owned by Qatar
As long as it isn't Russian, I'm fine...
@@Atomicjedidont care who owns it as long as the actual get it done on time and budget
Hope your logistics cater for obstruction by some unwashed gantry dwellers on any road or rail used🙄
Why is it marketing people always talk gobbledygook. It is too expensive and too much waste.
RR try building SWR then you might get some interest.