What are the disadvantages of SMR reactors? However, they also take longer to build, have higher capital costs so are harder to finance, and are arguably becoming too complex. Different conditions at different nuclear sites also reduce the potential to replicate designs, which also adds costs.18 Oct 2021 What are the problems with SMRs? With a roll-out of SMRs, skills will be needed for factory work, on-site construction, and plant operation. Deploying SMRs without concurrent supply chain development could hinder deployment and increase costs As of 2023, only China and Russia have successfully built operational SMRs. The US Department of Energy had estimated the first SMR in the United States would be completed by NuScale Power around 2030, but this deal has since fallen through after the customers backed out due to rising costs
10cm3 × 16million = 16m3 ×20t/m3 = 320 tonnes for one reactor. Uranium metal fuel. 5% enriched. 32 tonnes 100% Uranium metal. Yes it takes time to enrich.
Let me save you time. Heating water is only the beginning of the world's problem. No fossil fueled future means 5times more electricity. So, 10times the heater cost is the final electricity costs. So, 5times more electricity is the final clean demand. So, 50times more minerals and fossil fueled first generation infrastructure and financing. And time frames, and......... EVs and rooftop PV in the millions and millions and millions will easily beat this uneconomic nonsense.
That's the most laughable thing I've read in a while. The resource usage of renewable energy sources is 100 times that of nuclear, not to mention land usage. Tell me again how we'll be mining more uranium when U3O8 at natural 0.7% U235 concentrations has 10500 times the energy density of crude oil?
@@Ziess1 Nuclear weapons are even more concentrated energy, and that's not good. The biggest problem is the concentrated central electric generation MUST disperse the electricity to the millions and millions of ends of the existing national grid. With more electricity demand the grid must be rebuilt to carry the greater electricity supply. The grid costs are huge. The grid costs are 66% of electricity bills. This is why the nuclear promoters say even free electricity needs expensive national transmission grid and farms of Renewables are not viable. The grid is fragile, built to minimum for economic reasons. But rooftop PV and EV big batteries can generate and store electricity at the millions and millions of ends of the existing national grid. This is unloads the grid. And no new grid is needed, this is a stupendously large saving. Australian rooftop is cheaper than windows $/m2. USA rooftop is too complicated and expensive.
@@Ziess1 You are right about the density. To replace with electricity 5 to 6 time more electricity is needed. The grid is fragile. The grid is incredibly expensive and fragile because it was never over built. Any way to unload the grid has massive economic advantages.
What are the disadvantages of SMR reactors?
However, they also take longer to build, have higher capital costs so are harder to finance, and are arguably becoming too complex. Different conditions at different nuclear sites also reduce the potential to replicate designs, which also adds costs.18 Oct 2021
What are the problems with SMRs?
With a roll-out of SMRs, skills will be needed for factory work, on-site construction, and plant operation. Deploying SMRs without concurrent supply chain development could hinder deployment and increase costs
As of 2023, only China and Russia have successfully built operational SMRs. The US Department of Energy had estimated the first SMR in the United States would be completed by NuScale Power around 2030, but this deal has since fallen through after the customers backed out due to rising costs
10cm3 × 16million = 16m3
×20t/m3 = 320 tonnes for one reactor. Uranium metal fuel.
5% enriched.
32 tonnes 100% Uranium metal.
Yes it takes time to enrich.
Let me save you time.
Heating water is only the beginning of the world's problem.
No fossil fueled future means 5times more electricity.
So, 10times the heater cost is the final electricity costs.
So, 5times more electricity is the final clean demand.
So, 50times more minerals and fossil fueled first generation infrastructure and financing.
And time frames, and.........
EVs and rooftop PV in the millions and millions and millions will easily beat this uneconomic nonsense.
That's the most laughable thing I've read in a while.
The resource usage of renewable energy sources is 100 times that of nuclear, not to mention land usage.
Tell me again how we'll be mining more uranium when U3O8 at natural 0.7% U235 concentrations has 10500 times the energy density of crude oil?
@@Ziess1
Nuclear weapons are even more concentrated energy, and that's not good.
The biggest problem is the concentrated central electric generation MUST disperse the electricity to the millions and millions of ends of the existing national grid.
With more electricity demand the grid must be rebuilt to carry the greater electricity supply.
The grid costs are huge.
The grid costs are 66% of electricity bills.
This is why the nuclear promoters say even free electricity needs expensive national transmission grid and farms of Renewables are not viable.
The grid is fragile, built to minimum for economic reasons.
But rooftop PV and EV big batteries can generate and store electricity at the millions and millions of ends of the existing national grid.
This is unloads the grid.
And no new grid is needed, this is a stupendously large saving.
Australian rooftop is cheaper than windows $/m2.
USA rooftop is too complicated and expensive.
@@Ziess1
You are right about the density.
To replace with electricity 5 to 6 time more electricity is needed.
The grid is fragile.
The grid is incredibly expensive and fragile because it was never over built.
Any way to unload the grid has massive economic advantages.