Rolls-Royce SMR, a British solution to the global energy challenge

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
  • New nuclear has a vital role to play in providing reliable, secure and affordable power - decarbonising homes and industry and helping us to meet our net zero commitments.
    Rolls-Royce SMR is the first nuclear technology to be designed and built in the UK for more than 20 years. Using a well-understood, tried and tested, nuclear reactor design, Rolls-Royce SMR is taking a radically new approach to fabrication, manufacturing and assembly.
    The result is a complete ‘factory-built’ nuclear power plant which will provide enough electricity to power a million homes for over 60 years.

ความคิดเห็น • 32

  • @user-gx1tt8zy3w
    @user-gx1tt8zy3w 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    British design and built, needs British investment not foreign. The government should stop sitting on the fence.

  • @iancanty9875
    @iancanty9875 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

    It’s about time the UK government got its finger out and placed an order with Rolls Royce for at least 2 smrs. The estimated initial cost or £2 to £3 billion and a target price of £1.8 billion, they’re a fraction of the cost of a full scale reactor, cheaper and safer to run. If they spent as much on a bunch of smrs as they are doing on Hinckley Point, the actual generating capacity / £ would be greater.

    • @lolroflpmsl
      @lolroflpmsl 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      I've been saying this for ages.

    • @iancanty9875
      @iancanty9875 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@lolroflpmsl What we believe about SMR’s was at one time promoted quite widely online and several positive articles can still be found. That’s where I got info to base my comment on. However, recently I’ve noticed several critical articles which offer nothing but negativity and contradiction. It makes me wonder why and who is behind this criticism and what are their motives. I think something fishy is going on. Especially when other renewable energy systems are not without major problems, such as the toxic heavy metals within solar panels and their poor efficiency when they get dirty. Also, the difficulty in disposing the huge fibreglass wind turbine blades, which only have a lifespan of 20 years at best. Already they are being dumped in landfill and even in piles here and there across the country. SMR’s would seem to be the sensible, continuous, long term solution until nuclear fusion is perfected.

    • @lolroflpmsl
      @lolroflpmsl 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@iancanty9875 As the next generation of reactors they make sense, but the same could be said if you build a dozen AP1000s, the economy of scale drives cost down. The challenge we have is that there's only so much uranium and we're going to have to revisit closing the fuel cycle (again) in light of others also being interested in increased nuclear capacity. Gen IV reactors are the next step, logically, but development is needed.

  • @lg5819
    @lg5819 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    When will the British government stop hesitating and give RR the go ahead to build SMR across the U.K.. 🇬🇧

  • @garycooper347
    @garycooper347 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

    If Rolls Royce do not get the British contract I will not be suprised because of our totally reprehensible politicians

    • @hemshah1567
      @hemshah1567 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Government is already providing good support to SMR industry 😁

    • @jonmould2946
      @jonmould2946 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Wow only a million homes. They're letting in 1 million per year from the third 🌎.

    • @lg5819
      @lg5819 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Exactly, there’ll give it to Hitachi to save costs and later regret it when RR build these abroad. I’m sure our globalist government are deliberately ruining british manufacturing, ever since Margaret Thatcher began privatisation.

    • @lg5819
      @lg5819 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@hemshah1567yes but who? Hitachi and foreign firms?

    • @lawncare-4u849
      @lawncare-4u849 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Looks like getting Polish government contract first.

  • @colinmegson7107
    @colinmegson7107 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    You need to get on board with nuclear enabled hydrogen (NEH) for every SMR ordered.
    Paired with a PEM electrolyser, each SMR, operatin at 100% availability, would be able to load follow grid demand in milliseconds; even the crazy, random generation forms from wind and solar.
    Operators would qualify for 4 revenue streams and be able to sell greener-than-green NEH into the existing hydrogen market, most probably at a premium.
    'Selling' an SMR + NEH manufacture to the government will be 10X easier than 'selling' the SMR on its own.
    Search for:
    cost of powering the uk with smrs and neh

    • @Andrew-rc3vh
      @Andrew-rc3vh 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Also if you were clever you could use the waste heat through a heat exchanger.

  • @Gobbersmack
    @Gobbersmack หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Does the building have to look like a tumor though?

  • @varcoliciulalex
    @varcoliciulalex 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    any estimate on the cost?

    • @Gobbersmack
      @Gobbersmack หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      5 Billion dollars, 55 Billion if the government gets involved.

  • @dorson723
    @dorson723 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Have you seen any good technology come out of uk in past decades?

  • @ecofriend93
    @ecofriend93 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Any word of first deployment? Unfortunately the US' Nuscale installation got canceled

  • @simonjohnson1
    @simonjohnson1 21 วันที่ผ่านมา

    This is old-fashioned technology. We should build Stable Salt Reactors instead - safer, cheaper and cleaner. See Moltex Energy UK's SSR(W)

  • @andrewjameson5918
    @andrewjameson5918 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    What about the waste from the SMR. Where will that go in 60 years

    • @LonelyWolfTBTM
      @LonelyWolfTBTM 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      To the moon, like my RR stocks!

    • @ecofriend93
      @ecofriend93 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      My understanding is that these devices are self contained meaning that once exhausted they can be safely buried without fear of leakage.

    • @simonjohnson1
      @simonjohnson1 21 วันที่ผ่านมา

      This is one of many reasons why we should build Stable Salt Reactors instead. The SSR(W) can consume existing waste unlike the RR SMR which makes long lived high level radioactive waste.

  • @planje4740
    @planje4740 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    - ди има британац а да мисли на људе а не на себе или паре

  • @unda25
    @unda25 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    is very good to have free electric energy for everybody without depending of Russia!

  • @marble296
    @marble296 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Impossible to fit everything into a single module. A collection of modules maybe.
    Also what if it goes wrong? You can't move it easily and the containment won't be the same as a fixed building.
    It's a gimmick. Should have been perfecting how to build an actual plant like the French have for decades.
    Instead of trying to leapfrog back in with this half baked idea.

    • @thefowlyetti2
      @thefowlyetti2 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Its a lot cheaper to build these all over the country than massive plants like Hinkley C which is in the news recently for massive delays and cost over runs.

    • @marble296
      @marble296 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@thefowlyetti2at least we know the cost and hinkley exists as a physical thing. This does not.

    • @thefowlyetti2
      @thefowlyetti2 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Rolls Royce have been building small nuclear reactors for decades. Its not like its a revolutionary product, just a new concept. Id rather the government invest in home grown nuclear industry rather than the mess EDF has become.@@marble296

    • @rogerb08
      @rogerb08 7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      What if what goes wrong ? this is a 3rd Gen PWR they’ve been around for ages and RR already use them in Subs, as for for Containment these things are designed to withstand a LOCA