SMR’s a conundrum.

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

So , it has been decided , SMR's are the answer to our 'energy problem'.

Except , now , today , S( small ) has become B (big)..

500MW big , which is , approx. the actual output of each of our current AGR reactors !

And of course , no running design exists for a scale up to that size ,

Which means a new untested design, delays , etc, etc , can we really afford to wait that long ?

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

SMR’s A conundrum

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

Don't you love abbreviations

Tony KDM

[John RuddParticipant @johnrudd16576]

I used to hate TLA's when I was working….

Thought I'd seen the end of them…

[A SmithParticipant @asmith78105]

Small Modular Reactors = 500Mw

Hinckley Point = 3.2Gw

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Hinkley Point B , 2 x 660MW reactors but only output 500MW.

I wouldn't class them as 'small ' or even 'modular'.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Small Modular Reactors aren't the preferred terminology, things are moving on. Government interest is in Advanced Modular Reactors, made in a factory and small enough to be assembled in a space the size of a football stadium. Reactors could be as big as 1000MW. Timescale: in service before 2050.

Six different types of technology under consideration, two of which are well understood. Forgive the alphabet soup, they are: HTGR/VHTR, SFR, SCWR, GFR, LFR and MSR.

As always with Nuclear, main cause of concern is the cost of decommissioning or having a catastrophic accident.

Dave

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

100 billion plus the last time I looked at the windscale cleanup

That would buy a lot of windmills

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 08/11/2021 15:04:26:

As always with Nuclear, main cause of concern is the cost of decommissioning or having a catastrophic accident.

Dave

Small cost compared with destroying the planet by burning coal!

Russell

[Pete RimmerParticipant @peterimmer30576]

I should think that adding Surface Mount Resistors would reduce the power available not increase it

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

How many cars can 500MW recharge per night?

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Bazyle on 08/11/2021 18:07:11:

How many cars can 500MW recharge per night?

.

How long is a piece of string ??

MichaelG.

.

A quick check suggests that 50 to 100 kWh per car might be a reasonable estimate of capacity, so I’m sure you can do the math.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 08/11/2021 15:04:26:

……..

Six different types of technology under consideration, two of which are well understood. Forgive the alphabet soup, they are: HTGR/VHTR, SFR, SCWR, GFR, LFR and MSR.

As always with Nuclear, main cause of concern is the cost of decommissioning or having a catastrophic accident.

Dave

Nuclear causes least deaths per TWhr of all forms of power, see stats. It gets a bad press because when something goes wrong it can be spectacular, but it goes wrong very infrequently. Just to take 2 entries from the link, coal 100,000 deaths per TWhr, nuclear 90. Lower than hydro, because people get killed in dam bursts. However, don't think I'm cynical if I say that studies into more advanced reactors are just a way of kicking the can down the road. No government in the UK will have the guts to actually order nuclear reactors. We own the design of AGRs, we've built and operated 12 and they have all exceeded there design life with no incidents. We also make the fuel. They are more thermally efficient than PWRs and have a higher fuel burn up. The prototype WAGR has now been decommissioned and dismantled and the waste put into safe storage. Why don't we just build some more? The highly active waste generated from one person's lifetime electricity consumption if all generated by nuclear would fit in a baked bean tin

78% of France's electricity comes from nuclear, and at present we are getting 6% of our electricity by the interconnect, so added to the 17% from our own stations we get 22% from nuclear

Edited By duncan webster on 08/11/2021 21:09:39

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Just as we ironed out all the tiny problems with the AGR's ALL the supporting industries were closed down.

The 'cheap and cheerful' PWR became the 'go to' design and build.

The PWR design is , I believe , basically 'ours' anyway Rolls sold to Westinghouse ?

The idea we should have 'submarine size/type ' reactors in every town is a myth currently being destroyed.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Rolls-Royce gets funding to develop mini nuclear reactors

**LINK**

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

New reactors in service before 2050! We need extra generating capacity NOW, the grid is being run on a knife edge, if we have a severe winter and the indications given by El Niño in the Pacific look like that may be so, then we are going to probably run out of generating capacity this winter. If the weather is severe then the interlinks with the continent cannot be relied upon, they will need all the power they can generate for themselves, throw into the mix that Russia may well tinker with the gas supplies, either by upping the price considerably or reducing the supplied amount. Unfortunately we cannot rely on any government to make the bold decision to go forward with development of nuclear, add to that the extra demand being created by EVs, the prospects as of this moment don’t look too healthy. Dave W

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

BOGOFF?

Regards Ian.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

So what does the additional F stand for, Ian ?

[dare we ask]

MichaelG.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Russell Eberhardt on 08/11/2021 16:29:39:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 08/11/2021 15:04:26:

As always with Nuclear, main cause of concern is the cost of decommissioning or having a catastrophic accident.

Dave

Small cost compared with destroying the planet by burning coal!

Russell

I agree. Unfortunately, burning fossil fuels has turned out to be extraordinarily dangerous too. It's unfortunate history that those building early nuclear powers stations lied and fudged about the cost of decommissioning. At a time when no-one understood global warming, only cost mattered. Nuclear energy was cheaper than coal provided you didn't worry about cleaning up.

Now it's understood the cost of cleaning up after coal is also horrendous, if it can be done at all. The actual cost/risk balance is better understood today, and I'd be surprised if Nuclear electricity wasn't a major player in future. Green electricity may be clean and cheap, but it's erratic and difficult to store. Something is needed to handle the base load (about 20GW in the UK) and nuclear looks to be the best option at the moment.

If something better turned up I'd dump nuclear in a blink. Human error is my worry: locating a nuclear power-station on the sea-shore in an earthquake zone vulnerable to tsunamis was bad decision, as was putting a new-boy martinet in charge of a foolish speed trial on a sensitive reactor with the safety procedures in a badly maintained mess.

Unqualified politicians may not be at the actual controls, but they can't keep their paws off budgets, deciding where stuff is built, who is put in overall charge, placing contracts and setting silly operating targets. Some are even paid to lobby for vested interests rather than represent the views of their electors.

Dave

[Oven ManParticipant @ovenman]

Posted by Ady1 on 08/11/2021 15:44:30:

100 billion plus the last time I looked at the windscale cleanup

That would buy a lot of windmills

Reliablity of supply is the name of the game and you certainly don't get it with wind power.

Some people think extracting energy from the wind could have unintended consequences elsewhere. Interesting thought.

I do think there is a big place for nuclear in the general mix of electricity supply and has been mentioned on here it is a lot safer than many people think.

We had a day trip to Calder Hall when I was at school, If I remember correctly we were allowed to get quite close to the action, standing on top of the reactor. One of the best school trips I ever went on.

Peter

[An OtherParticipant @another21905]

Rolls-Royce seems to be going ahead with SMRs

Link

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

An Other, design exercise only, no committee to produce anything. Dave W

[Jon LawesParticipant @jonlawes51698]

I think we need a thread on this site where we all contribute constructive engineering ideas to assist in solving these issues. The sheer wealth of experience and engineering backgrounds here would be invaluable if wielded correctly.

Edited By Jon Lawes on 09/11/2021 18:39:08

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Exactly Samsaranda, the CEGB had their design /development dept. at Berkeley constantly researching

new designs.

This £0.5billion will recreate what once existed before , under a different name.

Meanwhile, we press on making the electric toys of the future with no 'battery' to power them with.

And "yes" JL , I am sure 'we' ,as a group , have more common sense / practical solutions to present problems

than ever will be employed by the ' State'.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by J Hancock on 09/11/

And "yes" JL , I am sure 'we' ,as a group , have more common sense / practical solutions to present problems

than ever will be employed by the ' State'.

I'm fairly sure my dog has more common sense than the present government, and he's not even a collie

[Author]

Posts