Nuscale 60 MWe Nuclear Modules targeting mid-2020s
A US company Nuscale is also working on small modular reactors. NuScale’s SMR technology features the self-contained NuScale Power Module, with a gross capacity of 200 MWt or 60 MWe. Based on pressurized water reactor technology, the scalable design can be used in power plants of up to 12 individual modules. Nuscale spunout from Oregon State University in 2007.
The NuScale power module is packed inside a cylindrical containment vessel measuring 75 feet high and 15 feet in diameter and weighs about 700 tons. The company says the modules can be shipped in three segments by truck, rail or barge to their final destination.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
It would be great with improvements in the regulatory environment, but NuScale is aiming for first power in 2026.
Why must cabling and piping be hidden in concrete? Wouldn’t it be difficult to inspect and maintain?
Nuscale has been saying that for years, there is no political or social interest in anything with the world “nuclear”, my bet is for Chinese and Russians
Also where EBR-I and EBR-II were located.
So it isn’t as if weirder things haven’t happened there.
I listened to an hour long youtube video about the nuscale reactor. Interesting takeaways:
If proven that nukes are required for grid stabilization and to reach the goal of zero CO2 emissions then I am OK with it. One needs to be pragmatic. What doesn’t bend breaks.
Must always assume the worse. You do have a vessel under high pressure and temperature undergoing radiation damage with a working fluid that can be corrosive. Then of course there is the possibility of external damage due to earthquake, equipment failure, plane crash, and terrorist attack.
Good article from Michael Shellenberger on Forbes about how many green activists don’t really care about carbon emissions, but instead really want to use renewable energy to re-engineer society, and how nuclear is a spanner to that plan as it allows nations to enjoy high energy lifestyles without any pollution or large adjustments:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/14/the-real-reason-they-hate-nuclear-is-because-it-means-we-dont-need-renewables/#55ea6d93128f
Moltex Energy signed an agreement with Estonia on Monday:
https://www.moltexenergy.com/news/details.aspx?positionId=114
To be fair, that’s how road construction is done around here.
Many a brand new freeway opens up with already a couple of cuts and fills across the new surface because pipes and cables went in 1 month after the new concrete roadway was surfaced.
Is that supposed to happen at INL? Just like the GT-MHR, or NGNP, or any of the other paper designs that failed to get built?
Don’t get me wrong, I hope it gets built and am rooting for NuScale and INL, but in the end I think it will come down to INL needing government appropriations to fund it, and that will not happen if the wrong party is in power, or the wrong mix (administration, senate, house probably all need to be republican), and the government support would have to endure over the entire construction period. How fast can they build the first one of these? Probably not fast enough. If they could do it in 3 years, I give them a chance, although 2 would be better. If it takes 12 years or more…
Lol of course I know that.
And now a public service message from Rhona Mitra:
.
President Trump (in a very Trump-y voice): “We’re going to kick Russia in the balz by exporting more gas, oil, and even coal so their budget crashes and Europe isn’t dependent on them for power!”
Half of America: “Why that’s exactly what a Russian agent would do!”
More a tendency to pour concrete first, rip up concrete, lay cabling and piping, and re-pour concrete.
Top tier CAD diagrams are mostly a suggestion to the contractors who believe strongly in winging it.
.
So….we are all gonna die in 12 years because Senate Democrats threw the GND under the bus yesterday?
How is increasing America’s exports a ‘loss-loss’ for the country?
In just 2017 alone, our coal exports to the UK increased by 175% and for France it was 200%. All while both nations screamed hypocritically about the Paris BS Non-Agreement.
A total win-win. Unless you suffer from TDS, of course.
This dude is a total Troll. Didn’t you now that?
BS. Remove the anti-nuclear NRC from the picture and costs drop dramatically.
Also, equivalent wind capacity requires way more concrete and steel than nuclear reactors do. Oh, and solar doesn’t produce power in the dark and wind doesn’t produce power when there is no wind.
And Nuke plants don’t kill birds.
Yes, FOR EXPORT. Same exact reason he pushes for more LNG facilities, so we can export our cheap natural gas. And who is buying all that coal? Asia and Euro-Hypocrites yelling about Trump pulling out of the Paris Non-Agreement:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports-idUSKB
Ghost Reactors?
Senate vote today was priceless
Well it may not be entirely designed just yet.
This would really be the Chinese way: start building something before it is completely designed. Oh boy the stories I could tell.
They will find it. Trust me.
Or more specifically, they will find the best SJW Virtue Signaling Judge that court venue shopping will provide.
65 months to build a small, modular 125 MWe reactor?
Brian, was that a typo?
The longest car loan I’ve ever had was for 60 months.
Naah just like renewable power it’ll get mandates and subsidies.
Switching from coal to methane is a loss for the country?
<backs away slowly, not breaking eye contact>
Hardly a complete sentence.
Wait you are telling me Trump picks up free voters by advocating for coal even while market economics speed the transition from coal to methane?
win-win for Trump, so genius political move.
How can you state the obvious and not comprehend the meaning? Of course he is pushing for coal a lot of his supporters and a lot of people’s jobs and hopes are for coal. But the only reason he pushes for coal is because he also knows it’s NOT going to make any difference, coal is soon to be a obsolete technology.
It’s kind of like trying to comfort a man dying of terminal cancer.
First Nuscale plant is to be built in Idaho. NIMBYs and Watermellons can’t find Idaho on a map so no worries.
And the markets push more methane.
In the end the markets win.
End goal is for a 12 unit plant to cost $4,200 per installed kilowatt of generating capacity. Doing the math that comes out to 3.25 billion dollars for a 780MW plant.
Where do they spring the leak?
As far as I can tell for Nuscale if it springs a leak anywhere then it is passively safe.
The goal of course for smaller reactors is mass production.
Not a fan of small reactors unless they can be mass produced to make them a lot cheaper per MW than the larger units. As far as safety is concern are they still passively safe if they spring a leak?
No need to outlaw. Economics will outlaw it.
The Green New Deal would outlaw this. Alexandria Occasional Cortex FTW!!!
If they won’t be commercially available until a decade from now, they take a full decade to permit, and then another decade to construct in the US, then the first ones could come online right at 2050.
Different states have different decarbonization legislation timelines. Most demand that the power system to be mostly decarbonized before 2050.
Unless we see substantial improvements in the US nuclear regulatory environment, this technology doesn’t have a chance here.
I think both countries will construct at least a technology demonstration site.
I like the concentric pump inlet/outlet legs with a pump on the end of the stub on the ACP100. B&W’s Otto Hahn reactor had that and was commissioned in 1964.
All the trouble for putting a steam generator inside the RPV. Just boil the water on the fuel – BWRX-300!
Technology is nice but affordable technology is much nicer.
What is the budget for this unit?
I am quite certain, that the Chinese will succeed and actually build the thing. But with nimbys, watermelons, desperate housewives etc. in the US, I am hedging my bets.