SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The historic move is a step on the long path ahead for nuclear power:
The U.S. has just given the green light to its first-ever small modular nuclear design, a promising step forward for a power source that remains controversial among some climate advocates but is experiencing a popular renaissance.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the design, which was published Thursday in the Federal Register, from NuScale, an Oregon-based reactor company. The publication of the design in the Register allows utilities to select this type of reactor when applying for a license to build a new nuclear facility. The design would be able to produce a reactor about one-third the size of a usual reactor, with each module able to produce around 50 megawatts of power.
[...] Just because a design is on the books doesn't mean that it's smooth sailing for the industry or that all our grids are going to be powered by carbon-free nuclear electricity in a few years. NuScale is currently working on a six-module demonstration plant in Idaho that will be fully operational by 2030; the company said this month that its estimates for the price per megawatt hour of the demo plant had jumped by more than 50% since its last estimates, in an uncomfortable echo of ballooning costs associated with other traditional nuclear projects. Small modular reactors still produce nuclear waste, which some environmentalists say is a concern that can't be overlooked as the industry develops.
Previous stories:
US Regulators Certify First Small Nuclear Reactor Design
First Major Modular Nuclear Project Having Difficulty Retaining Backers
US Gives First-Ever OK for Small Commercial Nuclear Reactor
The US Government Just Invested Big in Small-Scale Nuclear Power
Safer Nuclear Reactors on the Horizon
(Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Friday January 27 2023, @03:58AM (5 children)
The biggest problem with nuclear is that it costs so much more than fossil plants. Glad to see they're addressing this prob…
Oh.
Never mind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2023, @06:26AM
But one concern with PV solar is there are going to be tons of worn out/broken panels (they don't last very long). If we include the costs of recycling these does PV solar still look practical?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pTamok on Friday January 27 2023, @09:38AM (2 children)
Nuclear does not have to be cheaper than solar or wind.
In the absence of grid-scale storage or cost-effective grid-scale power transmission across time-zones, reliable power has a premium price attached to it.
Solar cells don't work very well at night, and sometimes, there isn't much wind for extended periods, at which point you need some other way of generating grid electricity. The non-nuclear solution is pretty much burning something. If you need power at that point, you pay a premium - which is why gas(methane)-powered generators that are used at peak periods exist, and why they can charge truly astonishing amounts for the power that they generate.
Nuclear doesn't need to be cheaper than solar or wind if you count in the availability premium. If charging for carbon dioxide emissions gets serious, electricity produced from burning something will get even more expensive. Nuclear, especially if it is dispatchable (can be varied to something below full power in quiescent periods) is a very viable option.
(Score: 4, Touché) by anotherblackhat on Friday January 27 2023, @01:49PM (1 child)
OP
Reply
Right. But if the cost of the plant is more than $10/watt, then it doesn't really matter what it is, it's too expensive.
(Score: 1) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Monday January 30 2023, @03:20PM
But they're listing an updated estimate at $89 per MWh. Very far from $10 per kWh.
Stefan Axelsson
(Score: 1) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Monday January 30 2023, @03:25PM
Only the reference doesn't actually say that... It says that the cost of e.g. steel etc. that goes into the plant have risen more than 50%. It only says that this has affected the projected price of electricity from the plant, but doesn't mention a percentage increase.
The new estimate is $89 per MWh, so still competitive IMHO.
Stefan Axelsson