That could be promising.

Yes these designs are available , and are almost certainly a big part of the solution.

The pilot plant for the NuScale SMR is going to be located out at Idaho National Laboratory. I'm tentatively optimistic about these units, but I have concerns still about their capital costs compared to the amount of electricity they produce. However, I believe they have partnered with either a very successful South Korean or Japanese engineering firm to handle the construction management of the plants. This has been one of the issues with new nuclear plant construction in the United States in that have not had fully domestic construction of all components and processes. The commercial nuclear industry has lost the expertise in this country on doing these nuclear projects at the larger scale. Hopefully the smaller scale of these SMRs will lead to significantly simpler supply chains for construction to avoid cost overruns and deadline misses.

The first one is going to be built in Romania

https://energyindustryreview.com/power/first-small-modular-reactor-in-romania-to-be-installed-in-doicesti/

I am not an expert, however, it seems prudent to decentralize power generation. Seems less vulnerable to terrorist attacks possibly crippling large swathes of the nation.

But not a fan of Google, their ultimate agenda is not one I endorse.

edit: strike out the Google statements, I misread the post and had a Biden moment.

richardag said:

---

I am not an expert, however, it seems prudent to decentralize power generation. Seems less vulnerable to terrorist attacks possibly crippling large swathes of the nation.

But not a fan of Google, their ultimate agenda is not one I endorse.

---

Google? He was using that as a verb. I don't think Google is related in any way.

Eliminating moving parts (pumps) would go a long way to mitigating safety concerns. The relatively small size and ability to place a number of these reactors together would also be attractive. What is the bottom line (cost per kWhr) once installed (capital + operating + maintenance/upgrade costs) ? Plus, how about reactor waste? We in the west are not crazy about taking the east coast's nuclear waste and burying it in our deserts where it is subject to seismic events and leakage may contaminate our aquifers.

Pookers said:

---

Thorium Salt Reactors IMO.

---

They have their own issues, especially dealing with the molten salt chemistry within a high radiation field.

GeorgiAg said:

---

richardag said:

---

I am not an expert, however, it seems prudent to decentralize power generation. Seems less vulnerable to terrorist attacks possibly crippling large swathes of the nation.

But not a fan of Google, their ultimate agenda is not one I endorse.

---

Google? He was using that as a verb. I don't think Google is related in any way.

---

Thank you for the correction.

Got me at first too. I googled "Google NuScale" then realized it.

SwigAg11 said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Thorium Salt Reactors IMO.

---

They have their own issues, especially dealing with the molten salt chemistry within a high radiation field.

---

I should add that there are further issues regarding thorium in that it is not fissile. By itself, it is not sufficient to sustain the chain reaction. However, its primary isotope is fertile and can be transmuted into a fissile uranium isotope. Unfortunately, we do not have the fuel cycle economy (or reactors) for this. This would be a significant and very expensive endeavor. It would require significant investment from the federal government since you wouldn't get any return on your investment in this area for a very, very long time.

UTExan said:

---

Eliminating moving parts (pumps) would go a long way to mitigating safety concerns. The relatively small size and ability to place a number of these reactors together would also be attractive. What is the bottom line (cost per kWhr) once installed (capital + operating + maintenance/upgrade costs) ? Plus, how about reactor waste? We in the west are not crazy about taking the east coast's nuclear waste and burying it in our deserts where it is subject to seismic events and leakage may contaminate our aquifers.

---

I thought Bill Gates was working with a company who's design used Nuclear waste as fuel. Saw it on Netflix, docu Inside Bill Gates Mind or something like that.

GeorgiAg said:

---

The first one is going to be built in Romania

https://energyindustryreview.com/power/first-small-modular-reactor-in-romania-to-be-installed-in-doicesti/

---

That article discussed the first SMRs planned to be built in Romania, which will be the NuScale design. The first NuScale design is planned to be built in Idaho.

Ferg said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Eliminating moving parts (pumps) would go a long way to mitigating safety concerns. The relatively small size and ability to place a number of these reactors together would also be attractive. What is the bottom line (cost per kWhr) once installed (capital + operating + maintenance/upgrade costs) ? Plus, how about reactor waste? We in the west are not crazy about taking the east coast's nuclear waste and burying it in our deserts where it is subject to seismic events and leakage may contaminate our aquifers.

---

I thought Bill Gates was working with a company who's design used Nuclear waste as fuel. Saw it on Netflix, docu Inside Bill Gates Mind or something like that.

---

They've abandoned those plans because they could never get the proper breeding out of the fissionable materials.

It would be nice if people realized their are forces ( other than stupid leftists ) that are on all sides of the political spectrum working against Nuclear

In no particular order

Stupid leftists that think solar can solve all the problem

The coal Lobby

Russia pretty sure it was russsian misinformation that convinced stupid leftists in the EU that nuclear was bad.

The unmitigated success of Fracking and the sh**load of nat gas that was found
all that cheap gas led to gas peaker turbines being built and made nuclear even less competitive

And lastly the wall Street types that make huge amount of money by deregulating utilities
cheap abundant reliable electricity: means the market can't be gamed and huge profits won't be realized The near collapse of the Texas grid winter '21
Some people made a lot of money off of that catastrophe

Dow has plans to do just that by 2030.

https://corporate.dow.com/en-us/news/press-releases/dow--x-energy-to-drive-carbon-emissions-reductions-through-deplo.html

Was just about to post this. Definitely the only real path forward (given current technology) for clean energy.

richardag said:

---

I am not an expert, however, it seems prudent to decentralize power generation. Seems less vulnerable to terrorist attacks possibly crippling large swathes of the nation.

---

On the flip side...you have more critical points in your electricity supply to secure.

I don't know too much about these reactors so it would really depend on how costly it is to operate vs a more mainstream full size reactor (including ongoing costs to maintain and secure, etc).

But hell, ANY progress nuclear wise at this point would be good.

Due to the efficiencies of scale, I've gotta assume that large nuclear reactors are still THE WAY for most urban electricity, but the idea of being able to truck/rail around significant generation capability is super appealing for most supplemental or temporary applications.

Thorium / Molten Salt has one YUGE advantage: a PR angle.

Standardized designs are even better because they don't get bogged down red tape.

Standardized design + transportable has the additional advantage of specialized single location production (assembly lines are better for attracting talent and chasing quality than individual distributed projects).

So… while I don't think the small things are necessarily THE BEST ANSWER, I'd be happy to take em over windmills.

Also, here's a thought: seasonal generation trains: a company sets up these reactors on train cars and plugs in up north during the winter and down south during the summer. And if a black swan event is predicted, or a disaster hits - they could surge production to that location.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Also, here's a thought: seasonal generation trains: a company sets up these reactors on train cars and plugs in up north during the winter and down south during the summer. And if a black swan event is predicted, or a disaster hits - they could surge production to that location.

---

The ruskies do this with boats if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, a big part of it anyway. Redstone and I have discussed this at length. Also China is building a bunch of them too (and RR).



They also are not all water cooled.



Micro reactors are the next 'big thing.'

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Nuclear is the real Green Energy Revolution

The next Gen 4 nuclear plants are basically melt down proof and not reliant on strategic rate earth metals

We should pouring all our resources into them instead of trying to ban them

It's like banning a modern 747 because you're worried about the safety of the wright brothers plane

---

You are forgetting the Wolverine fight against a laser-eye enhanced Deadpool on top of the cooling towers that blew up the plant. Have they accounted for that?

The Pentagon going a step further and is testing small, modular, mobile reactors.

ALASKA

Using a new technology called TRISO to make them extremely safe, even if hit by a bomb.

TRISO

The S9G reactor on a nuke boat will fit in a space about 30'x30'x30'. It produces about 200 MW, enough to power 10,000 homes. We should be mass producing these to power cities.

I have been getting targeted ads on Texags for nuclear reactors since I commented on this thread. I hate to tell those guys, but I'm not really in the market for one.

Sorry, should have used lower case "g" in google - autocorrect changed it.

Will I finally be able to buy a Ford Nucleon?



The military has at times tried, succeeded, and failed at 'portable' nuclear power for many decades.