Small Nuclear Reactors are being used in submarine and colossal Aircraft carriers, so the tech is there, and use to generate electricity So that same reactors can be used for smaller Towns and ciiites and that can be scale up
The first 30 SMR reactors will generate energy at a price higher than $100 (93.5 euros) per MW at the moment. Taking into account typical construction delays, the price may increase by another 20-50%. At such a price, they will not be able to compete with other types of generation, except perhaps with diesel generators in Alaska or northern Canada.
Then again, are not warships and pretty safe from terrorists attempting to obtain their reactors. Or should we no longer be concerned about the dangers of nuclear proliferation?
Who's going to pay for them? Study after study have shown nuclear reactors are 6x the price than solar and wind + battery storage, and nuclear takes: 15-20 for each plant to be built, with MASSIVE taxes levied on people to build and maintain them. No thanks! Solar and wind + battery storage is the solution.
@@MrArtist7777 Nuclear reactors obey the same economic laws as wind turbines: Economies of scale. Building 1 is ridiculously expensive,but building 30 (like the French did) makes them really cheap. Plus they offer a very different service: They work where the weather is rubbish for renewables, and last about x4 as long.
@@MrArtist7777 The typical service life of wind turbines and solar panels with subsidies is 15 years, with the possibility of extension by 5 years. The typical service life of nuclear power plants is 45 years, with the possibility of extension by 15 years. The service life of nuclear power plants of generations 3+ and 4 is 60 years, with the possibility of extension by 20 years. Calculate LCOE and CAPEX before writing strange words about "6x the price..."
For 15 years in the West, there has only been chatter, but in fact only Russia and China are building all new reactors, namely small modular, floating power plants and also large classic pressurized water types and also fast neutrons types. Builds in many countries that are interested in building their nuclear power plants and also want domestic scientis and engineers. American company Westinghouse as last western leader went bankrupt twice and changed hands, and French companies are also in a deep crisis. The last power plants they built took 15 years to build and some are still unfinished even after this time with a 3-4 times increase in costs. They have everything on paper and in the tablet and computer on a theoretical level, but they don't even produce enough fuel for own use and they don't know how to effectively process and recycle the used fuel. In western countries is the used fuel is stored in nuclear waste repositories instead of working on the development of economic recycling technology that already exists in Russia, but is being ignored and hushed up for political reasons by western media. The main causes of western problems are the lack of talented scientists and engineers as a result of the degradation of education system and the transition to LGBT idiocy, fascism and green madness. Eldorado ends and the dark age begins, the Inquisition and the regime with only right opinion... Watch the movies Runingman and Idiocracy and you will understand :-)
you seem to believe Russia (Chernobyl ) is way ahead of the west They lead in corruption and admittedly fuel enrichment due to massive overbuild of faculties in Soviet times.No one has ever bean harmed by nuclear waste and after 400 years you could cuddle with a cando fuel bundle while watching a 2 hour movie
I know we have a rough history of nuclear power, but nuclear is the only way to the future. We’re in a world where economies are exploding that used to be third world countries. Now they are developing countries with a strong hunger for cheap power. I think everyone agrees that we will have real problems if every country on the planet are burning fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow. We can’t tell other countries not to as they will point out the hypocrisy. Renewable energy helps, but will never be complete on its own, even with the best battery tech we can offer. That leaves nuclear power which is amazing considering the waste is microscopic compared to burning carbon. We need it, we just have to be better engineers when it comes to safety.
iF it's SO small, than every single major part should be producable, via CNC shop. In an Age of rapid prototyping and Large CNC (Very large some with machine floor 50x50 feet)
SMRs could be the stopgap solution we need for the next several decades until we are able to get past the massive scientific and engineering hurdles of nuclear fusion reactors and make them commercially viable. Ultimately it will be fusion reactors that will eventually become our primary, nearly forever power source. They certainly seem to have the potential to be a better solution than building more of today's massive and seriously, ruinously expensive to build and operate light-water reactors.
I also agree with using Thorium as a nuclear fuel as well now! Here is a Wikipedia article which goes into some detail on the use of Thorium as a nuclear fuel: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power .
One of the problems that the use of SMRs entails is the transit of fuel to supply each of them, and then, to send the "burned" or fissioned fuel to some facility... a lot of workload. for IAEA/IAEA inspection & monitoring... and the inherent risks... I see it as a BIG obstacle
@@rickturner6418 I was not referring to handling... but to the safe transport of virgin and burnt fuel material from and to each facility... it is truly an additional problem, which no one is counting on. Transport is in appropriate containers, with police and UN (IAEA) custody... imagine the transit of all this, through first world, second or third world countries...
It could keep Labor in power in Australia as a midway until we know if the German geothermal works or if data centres are still power hungry and it will keep the coal mining towns alive..
Still using solid rods of uranium rather than liquid thorium which will produce little waste that only stays toxic for 100s of years not 100,000s of years.
Truth is, a long-term, independent study found that nuclear power generation is 6x more expensive than solar and wind + battery storage. LOTS of these videos talk about SMR's but, none are being built and they won't be, due to their extremely high cost. We'll see FAR more solar, wind and battery storage until we achieve 100% from these as nothing else competes.
In fact only Russia built new SMR reactors with HALEU fuel and only China built SMR reseach rector of 4th generation with mixed fuel. Only Russia has new contract to build new SMR nuclear power station in Uzbekistan (6 SMRs, each have 55 MW of electric and 200 MW of thermal power). Only Russia and France have abilities to produce enough HALEU fuel for SMRs. All other "SMR" projects are re-developed old projects of "medium" modular reactors with power from 300 to 600 MW and usual nuclear fuel (5% enrichment). You must include costs of new electricity lines to another time zones + regulated substations + balancing and stabilisation + "cold" backup (like fossil fuel power plants or hydroelecric plants), when you talk something like "solar and wind + battery storage". Existing electricity lines and substations (without regulation of power and direction of energy transfer) cannot use all the energy from renewable energy sources, so losses can reach up to 30%. Lithium batteries (even with hot standby mode of 20-80% capacity) require complete replacement of batteries every 10-12 years and repacking (partial replacement of blocks with high internal resistance) every 3-4 years. In most countries of the world (with the rare exception of Australia), the duration of periods of calm and lack of sun ranges from 14 to 30 days, the duration of a 50% reduction in output power is 3-4 times higher. Wind and solar can supplement base generation at a level of up to 1/3 of annual output. Anything above this threshold significantly increases the cost of solar and wind energy, to the level of current tariffs in Germany and Denmark (24-32 euro cents per kWh for end consumers or 16-24 euro cents per kWh for the wholesale market)
I am not against nuclear fission or even potentially fusion, there are times and places that nuclear could be appropriate. I do believe that nuclear will play a minor role. Renewable energy is rapidly advancing. Your statement about intermittent renewable resources is shortsighted. The point is: sunshine is free and the sun is shining and the wind is always blowing somewhere. The trick is to distribute and store that energy. Civilization is changing energy models, away from a centralized system to a distributed energy network. Every solar panel will add energy to a battery and every battery will feed the grid. SNRs might play a part by topping off batteries. There will never be a blackout because every consumer will be it's own backup.
It is technologically impossible to control a huge number of generation sources and distribute energy stably without significant losses. Any generation sources with a capacity of less than 1 MW mean low voltage and the costs for transmission lines, substations, balancing, backup and maintenance are higher than for generation sources. All renewable energy with a capacity of less than 1 MW (and often less than 10 MW) is subsidized worldwide.
@@MihailG5541 It may be true that a centralized system would have a problems controlling a large number of sources. However, a decentralized system would be less complex. In a distributed virtual system, large scale inertia and frequency control would be replaced with localized battery modulated control. As to costs, renewable sources of power are more efficient. Centralized power stations waste two thirds of their energy to process heat. Golmud Solar Park in China is the world’s largest solar farm with a 2.8 GW base and it seems to be quite integrated into the grid.
@@chrisconklin2981 solar panels waste 80% of energy into the heat. Thermal power plants can be used in many cases such as plastic recycling, water desalination and so on
@@MihailG5541 Thank you for the comparison and please let me be more complete in comparison. I will not talk about nuclear as it is too complicated for this level of discussion. Regarding solar panels, the sunlight is free and the twenty percent that is converted into electricity instantaneously travels by wire, and is sometimes stored, on a grid system. Yes, we pay for this grid. Regarding fossil fuels they are archaic plants and animals that also depended upon sunlight. The process of mining/drilling, transporting, processing or refining, transported again, and then burnt for fuel to make electricity is a long process. I would say that this process is both energy and structurally much more expensive. Besides the sun will always shine and fossil fuels will never last. Actually oil and coal are wonderful things. It is a shame that we just burn the stuff.
@@chrisconklin2981 The entire process of manufacturing, transporting, installing, maintaining, storing, disposing of or recycling both solar panels and wind turbines involves fossil fuels to a large extent. These are very energy-consuming processes. I have not seen a single study that shows savings compared to fossil fuels in transport by more than 1.5 times and in the electricity sector by more than 2 times. Only heat pumps or pellets/biogas from waste have high energy cost reduction coefficients. Until other more sustainable and stable types of renewable energy (hydro, geothermal, biofuels of all types, hydrogen or ammonia, alcohol from renewable sources...) rise to the same position in terms of electricity generation per year, filling a significant part of the described chain - You can’t talk about “free” energy, “zero” emissions or at least some kind of long-term stability of the energy system.
@@chrisconklin2981 China leads in controlling all renewable energy chains (solar, wind, lithium and sodium batteries, electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, compressed gas stations, major hydroelectric power plants, pumped storage power plants, rare earth metals, strong magnets)
![ไข้ขึ้นเลย! เมื่อแฝดโดนจัดเต็มวัคซีนครบ2เดือน🤒 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.54 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z2VHItnyyvY/mqdefault.jpg)
Yes definitely! This must be the future of nuclear energy! Thanks for doing this!
Small Nuclear Reactors are being used in submarine and colossal Aircraft carriers, so the tech is there, and use to generate electricity
So that same reactors can be used for smaller Towns and ciiites and that can be scale up
The first 30 SMR reactors will generate energy at a price higher than $100 (93.5 euros) per MW at the moment.
Taking into account typical construction delays, the price may increase by another 20-50%.
At such a price, they will not be able to compete with other types of generation, except perhaps with diesel generators in Alaska or northern Canada.
Then again, are not warships and pretty safe from terrorists attempting to obtain their reactors. Or should we no longer be concerned about the dangers of nuclear proliferation?
In the 1950s/1960s we built loads of these. The result: We discovered bigger reactors generate power much cheaper.
Build BIG Modular Reactors.
Who's going to pay for them? Study after study have shown nuclear reactors are 6x the price than solar and wind + battery storage, and nuclear takes: 15-20 for each plant to be built, with MASSIVE taxes levied on people to build and maintain them. No thanks! Solar and wind + battery storage is the solution.
@@MrArtist7777 Nuclear reactors obey the same economic laws as wind turbines: Economies of scale.
Building 1 is ridiculously expensive,but building 30 (like the French did) makes them really cheap.
Plus they offer a very different service: They work where the weather is rubbish for renewables, and last about x4 as long.
@@MrArtist7777 The typical service life of wind turbines and solar panels with subsidies is 15 years, with the possibility of extension by 5 years.
The typical service life of nuclear power plants is 45 years, with the possibility of extension by 15 years.
The service life of nuclear power plants of generations 3+ and 4 is 60 years, with the possibility of extension by 20 years.
Calculate LCOE and CAPEX before writing strange words about "6x the price..."
These would fit in in ai computer center. AI takes a lot of power freeing up that power by using smr. The free power put back in grid
Nuclear reactors follow the square-cube law: Make their parts slightly bigger and you get A LOT more power. So big reactors are more cost effective.
For 15 years in the West, there has only been chatter, but in fact only Russia and China are building all new reactors, namely small modular, floating power plants and also large classic pressurized water types and also fast neutrons types. Builds in many countries that are interested in building their nuclear power plants and also want domestic scientis and engineers.
American company Westinghouse as last western leader went bankrupt twice and changed hands, and French companies are also in a deep crisis. The last power plants they built took 15 years to build and some are still unfinished even after this time with a 3-4 times increase in costs.
They have everything on paper and in the tablet and computer on a theoretical level, but they don't even produce enough fuel for own use and they don't know how to effectively process and recycle the used fuel.
In western countries is the used fuel is stored in nuclear waste repositories instead of working on the development of economic recycling technology that already exists in Russia, but is being ignored and hushed up for political reasons by western media.
The main causes of western problems are the lack of talented scientists and engineers as a result of the degradation of education system and the transition to LGBT idiocy, fascism and green madness.
Eldorado ends and the dark age begins, the Inquisition and the regime with only right opinion...
Watch the movies Runingman and Idiocracy and you will understand :-)
you seem to believe Russia (Chernobyl ) is way ahead of the west They lead in corruption and admittedly fuel enrichment due to massive overbuild of faculties in Soviet times.No one has ever bean harmed by nuclear waste and after 400 years you could cuddle with a cando fuel bundle while watching a 2 hour movie
I know we have a rough history of nuclear power, but nuclear is the only way to the future. We’re in a world where economies are exploding that used to be third world countries. Now they are developing countries with a strong hunger for cheap power. I think everyone agrees that we will have real problems if every country on the planet are burning fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow. We can’t tell other countries not to as they will point out the hypocrisy. Renewable energy helps, but will never be complete on its own, even with the best battery tech we can offer. That leaves nuclear power which is amazing considering the waste is microscopic compared to burning carbon. We need it, we just have to be better engineers when it comes to safety.
iF it's SO small, than every single major part should be producable, via CNC shop. In an Age of rapid prototyping and Large CNC (Very large some with machine floor 50x50 feet)
SMRs could be the stopgap solution we need for the next several decades until we are able to get past the massive scientific and engineering hurdles of nuclear fusion reactors and make them commercially viable. Ultimately it will be fusion reactors that will eventually become our primary, nearly forever power source. They certainly seem to have the potential to be a better solution than building more of today's massive and seriously, ruinously expensive to build and operate light-water reactors.
Much better than bigger and harmful environment reactors. Thorium, small to mini reactors is the future.
I think we should be using thorium. Cheaper and safer
I also agree with using Thorium as a nuclear fuel as well now!
Here is a Wikipedia article which goes into some detail on the use of Thorium as a nuclear fuel:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power .
One of the problems that the use of SMRs entails is the transit of fuel to supply each of them, and then, to send the "burned" or fissioned fuel to some facility... a lot of workload. for IAEA/IAEA inspection & monitoring... and the inherent risks... I see it as a BIG obstacle
No one has ever bean hurt transporting nuclear waste and the fuel bundles are safe to handle with bare hands prior to the reaction starting
@@rickturner6418 I was not referring to handling... but to the safe transport of virgin and burnt fuel material from and to each facility... it is truly an additional problem, which no one is counting on. Transport is in appropriate containers, with police and UN (IAEA) custody... imagine the transit of all this, through first world, second or third world countries...
I like your topic, plus your presentation skill
pronouncing Nuclear not nuculur... lol
Don't you hate it when otherwise intelligent people say that word wrong. Drive me crazy.
It could keep Labor in power in Australia as a midway until we know if the German geothermal works or if data centres are still power hungry and it will keep the coal mining towns alive..
Nice Video
awsome idea
Russia built SMR’s decades ago…
So did the USA in their submarines and aircraft carriers. The lightwater reactor exists because it fit best in the sub
Still using solid rods of uranium rather than liquid thorium which will produce little waste that only stays toxic for 100s of years not 100,000s of years.
Lately I can't stop listening to October ends ' new song. You need to react to it out 🔥
I NEVER TRUST ANYTHING THAT IS MAINSTREAM
I SUPPORT THE OPPOSITE
Truth is, a long-term, independent study found that nuclear power generation is 6x more expensive than solar and wind + battery storage. LOTS of these videos talk about SMR's but, none are being built and they won't be, due to their extremely high cost. We'll see FAR more solar, wind and battery storage until we achieve 100% from these as nothing else competes.
The main reason that nuclear is so expensive are the regulations.
@@JvsSanders I wonder why all of those regulations are necessary? Could be be all of those contractors cutting corners.
In fact only Russia built new SMR reactors with HALEU fuel and only China built SMR reseach rector of 4th generation with mixed fuel.
Only Russia has new contract to build new SMR nuclear power station in Uzbekistan (6 SMRs, each have 55 MW of electric and 200 MW of thermal power).
Only Russia and France have abilities to produce enough HALEU fuel for SMRs.
All other "SMR" projects are re-developed old projects of "medium" modular reactors with power from 300 to 600 MW and usual nuclear fuel (5% enrichment).
You must include costs of new electricity lines to another time zones + regulated substations + balancing and stabilisation + "cold" backup (like fossil fuel power plants or hydroelecric plants), when you talk something like "solar and wind + battery storage".
Existing electricity lines and substations (without regulation of power and direction of energy transfer) cannot use all the energy from renewable energy sources, so losses can reach up to 30%.
Lithium batteries (even with hot standby mode of 20-80% capacity) require complete replacement of batteries every 10-12 years and repacking (partial replacement of blocks with high internal resistance) every 3-4 years.
In most countries of the world (with the rare exception of Australia), the duration of periods of calm and lack of sun ranges from 14 to 30 days, the duration of a 50% reduction in output power is 3-4 times higher.
Wind and solar can supplement base generation at a level of up to 1/3 of annual output. Anything above this threshold significantly increases the cost of solar and wind energy, to the level of current tariffs in Germany and Denmark (24-32 euro cents per kWh for end consumers or 16-24 euro cents per kWh for the wholesale market)
I am not against nuclear fission or even potentially fusion, there are times and places that nuclear could be appropriate. I do believe that nuclear will play a minor role. Renewable energy is rapidly advancing. Your statement about intermittent renewable resources is shortsighted. The point is: sunshine is free and the sun is shining and the wind is always blowing somewhere. The trick is to distribute and store that energy. Civilization is changing energy models, away from a centralized system to a distributed energy network. Every solar panel will add energy to a battery and every battery will feed the grid. SNRs might play a part by topping off batteries. There will never be a blackout because every consumer will be it's own backup.
It is technologically impossible to control a huge number of generation sources and distribute energy stably without significant losses.
Any generation sources with a capacity of less than 1 MW mean low voltage and the costs for transmission lines, substations, balancing, backup and maintenance are higher than for generation sources.
All renewable energy with a capacity of less than 1 MW (and often less than 10 MW) is subsidized worldwide.
@@MihailG5541
It may be true that a centralized system would have a problems controlling a large number of sources. However, a decentralized system would be less complex. In a distributed virtual system, large scale inertia and frequency control would be replaced with localized battery modulated control. As to costs, renewable sources of power are more efficient. Centralized power stations waste two thirds of their energy to process heat. Golmud Solar Park in China is the world’s largest solar farm with a 2.8 GW base and it seems to be quite integrated into the grid.
@@chrisconklin2981 solar panels waste 80% of energy into the heat.
Thermal power plants can be used in many cases such as plastic recycling, water desalination and so on
@@MihailG5541 Thank you for the comparison and please let me be more complete in comparison. I will not talk about nuclear as it is too complicated for this level of discussion. Regarding solar panels, the sunlight is free and the twenty percent that is converted into electricity instantaneously travels by wire, and is sometimes stored, on a grid system. Yes, we pay for this grid.
Regarding fossil fuels they are archaic plants and animals that also depended upon sunlight. The process of mining/drilling, transporting, processing or refining, transported again, and then burnt for fuel to make electricity is a long process. I would say that this process is both energy and structurally much more expensive. Besides the sun will always shine and fossil fuels will never last. Actually oil and coal are wonderful things. It is a shame that we just burn the stuff.
@@chrisconklin2981 The entire process of manufacturing, transporting, installing, maintaining, storing, disposing of or recycling both solar panels and wind turbines involves fossil fuels to a large extent.
These are very energy-consuming processes.
I have not seen a single study that shows savings compared to fossil fuels in transport by more than 1.5 times and in the electricity sector by more than 2 times.
Only heat pumps or pellets/biogas from waste have high energy cost reduction coefficients.
Until other more sustainable and stable types of renewable energy (hydro, geothermal, biofuels of all types, hydrogen or ammonia, alcohol from renewable sources...) rise to the same position in terms of electricity generation per year, filling a significant part of the described chain - You can’t talk about “free” energy, “zero” emissions or at least some kind of long-term stability of the energy system.
why insane
what is nucular?
😂🤷🏻♀️
A very repetative video. Your're suggesting the gas runs the turbine? It's unclear.
chernobyl not chornobyl
But does not a major nuclear accident - by any other name - remain a clear and ever-present danger?
Never going to happen
Already is... so there!
@@stickynorth What is really happening is the wind and solar power are being deployed at a greater rate than all others.
@@chrisconklin2981 China leads in controlling all renewable energy chains (solar, wind, lithium and sodium batteries, electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, compressed gas stations, major hydroelectric power plants, pumped storage power plants, rare earth metals, strong magnets)