The Big Problem with SMRs

What if the logic at the core of the SMR paradigm is faulty?

One of the key promises of SMRs is to move a greater percentage of work from the unproductive construction site to a productive factory environment... but what if large modular reactors do a better job of that?

Module construction for the nuclear steam supply system and balance of plant containing key components, HVAC, electrical, plumbing etc... can be moved to the factory environment in small or large modular reactors like AP1000, ABWR or the most recent CANDUs.

Civil works and site preparation cannot.

The problem with grid scale SMRs like BWRX-300 & AP300 etc... is that the civil works and site preparation don't scale down proportionately with the decreased reactor output.

The nuclear steam supply system and turbine island is typically only 25% of the overnight construction cost of a nuclear plant. The civil works, site preparation, installation work dominate overnight cost.

Therefore with grid scale SMRs ~300MWe you actually end up with a greater proportion of work per MWe being on the unproductive construction site compared to a large modular reactor defeating the premise and promise of SMR productivity gains.

[Scoots]

To me it always struck me that it's an incredible amount of work and expense to get the site approved for any reactor, so 10 sites for SMR or Micro is still a similar amount of work as 10 sites for LWRs completely independent of the component and assembly costs.

[clarkkent]

Let me answer that question with one statement: There is no such thing as economies of SMALL scale in power generation

[thomasgreene]

A hard look was made in the 1980s to find the optimum sizing of future plants for the lowest cost of nuclear baseload power. That work found the civil works and indirect costs of construction and operation were key factors driving economies of scale because they do not increase strongly with the rated output of the plant. The direct cost of the nuclear island was a surprisingly small fraction of the total cost. The civil works and the non-nuclear part of the plant (i.e., the power-conversion system) are significant. The conclusion then was that a broad optimum of plant rating existed in the range of about 1000 MWe to 1300 MWe on a 60-Hz grid, with technical limitations in non-nuclear equipment capping the economies of scale. With the increases in turbine internal efficiencies since the 1980s, the optimum output range today is probably a little higher. The conclusion then was that when you dig the "hole" for a plant, put as many megawatts into it as you can, up to the technical limits on equipment scale. The fact that most of the programs worIdwide that regularly build nuclear units build them more or less in this size range makes me suspect the fundamentals are about the same today as they were forty years ago.

[davidandrews]

Multiple SMR plants mostly are not as consumptive of engineering as the big reactor. Construction off site creating Modules that are complete and need only to be assembled on site.
Site preparation and complexity of construction is far less with a multiple SMR site!
I am not debunking your THEORY about the cost but I believe you to be mistaken in many of the cost assumptions you are making!

[nathanielromanelli]

Good evening there, I personally reside here in Richland, Washington State, just adjacent to the massive Hanford Nuclear Site situated nearby. My own Father, now retired, personally worked at former WPPSS both over at WNP Units 3 and 5, along with WNP-2 for approx. 24 year's time. I personally worked out at Hanford in Administrative Support, in indirect support of the ongoing Nuclear Environmental Cleanup efforts out here, from approx. 1994 to 2012.

[bobdeverell]

We must not discourage new nuclear installations.
There are 2 overriding benefits of SMR. Firstly they are ideal replacement for on site upgrades to existing 300-400 mw coal plants. Secondly it is easier to fund a starter pack with SMR than a large nuclear power plant.
SMR are obviously not a replacement for large sites and should not be sold to the public as such.

[happyhome]

Jeeze louise — percentages are used by liars and car salesmen — this needs to be reframed in cost in money and time for civil works across reactors, and so on, and cost per MWh amortized over the expected life of the reactor, not NOT the first MWh produced.

[sonnyeastham]

...me thinks SMR's are a better target to attack...smaller so less explosives needed.... Whatcha think fellers?

[davidwilkie]

Love this presentation that not only doesn't dumb down because only mental deficits want that, it focuses on the dominant delusions of the day, such as what relevance production line modularity has, (not much, unless it it's irrelevant politics), and the bespoke tactic of playing the politics of individualised Reactors for deliberately ignorant fools is wearing very thin.

The comparison to Airports has an element of the same practice.
When Railways.., underground and cross river tunnels are standardised Civil Public Works, the vast improvement of land values around is leap upon by the vested interests, so why aren't the vested interests who require stable Electrification twistng the Political world to use a bit of obvious common sense. (Yes we know, it's "competition" politics)

[stormrunner]

I agree with the word salad issue of this interview. I believe the plants should be built by Provincial Governments, then handed over to private, as years go on. This would ensure quality control and maintenance. Sorry to point out Boeing, we don’t think we want a bunch of 737’s in our back yard, when we could have much better, near perfect units, built by quality Canadian, with experience. No deverstiyhires please.
It is the public that will need the inexpensive energy. Corporations can afford to pay for their power consumption.

[johnmerryman]

SMRs are dangerous. Ask any power company. They are more than happy to say anything that threatens their profits.
It's the future of power generation whether you like it or not. Come up with something that is better that can match the output of a SMR and I'm more than willing to listen.

[bjorngve]

A short clip doesn't make any sense. This is actually a good channel. There is SMR:s designed to work for long time with not much of maintenance. The construction also make them theoretically fool proof. And waste is not that big deal. But you never convince Deniers, no matter what. The first units produced will cost more -yes. But mass production will then do its thing. If you are serious about replace fossils we are talking about 80 -90 % of Worlds energy prod. The need is unbelievable, then will the big polluters (you know the countries) jump on the train?

[stephenbrickwood]

EVs big battery utility factor, when parked 23hrs daily, is very low.
Selfplug-in V2G EVs, driven 1 hr and plugged in 23hrs and trading electricity with the grid is MAXIMUM UTILITY FACTOR.

EVs battery liquid temperature management is extending battery life cycles by decades and the battery is free with the vehicle. 😊😊😊😊😊

The utility factor for nuclear grid electricity will be the big problem.
Grid capacity expansion costs are a huge cost like the plant costs. The both limit nuclear grid electricity.

The grid construction costs also limit distant renewables in the same way.

Offgrid capacity with big EV batteries means financial survival of these big grid solutions will need the customers to be locked into grid supply by law. It will be illegal to abandon the national grid.

[mikecoote]

I would like to see a chart (that I could believe) showing the construction costs to build a 300MW Nuclear/Wind/Solar/Gas plant. I know it depends on local legislative requirements etc, but just to have a physical works cost. or even say Plant/Hardware, Labour what ever. Surely its this kind of info thats needed to inform policy. Cheers