Small Modular Reactors Explained - Nuclear Power's Future?

Sponsored by SurfShark VPN. Click the link in the description and enter promo code UNDECIDED to get 84% off and 4 extra months FREE. With the growing popularity of solar and wind energy, we sometimes forget about another

power

ful source of low-carbon energy:

nuclear

. It may be a divisive topic, but there is a really interesting alternative to building massive, expensive

nuclear

plants worth talking about:

small

modular

reactors

. What are they? What are the benefits? And do they really address the disadvantages of nuclear energy? I'm Matt Ferrell. Welcome to Undecided. When the word nuclear comes up, most people think of mushroom clouds, wars, and disasters.

But while there is a scary story behind nuclear

power

, many see it as essential to establishing a reliable, carbon-free energy supply. We have been producing nuclear energy since the first nuclear power plant was connected to the Soviet power grid in 1954. It is widely considered to be a stable, carbon-friendly energy source that can be used to support the intermittency of renewables such as wind. and the solar. Some countries, such as France (71.7%), Slovakia (55%), Ukraine (53%) and Hungary (50.6%) depend on nuclear energy to produce electricity. And it represented 10.3% of global electricity generation in 2019. However, that figure was higher in the past.

In 1996, nuclear energy accounted for 17.7% of global electricity generation. Only 2.4 GW of new nuclear generation capacity came online in 2019, compared to 98 GW of solar PV and 59.2 GW of wind. What has caused this considerable decrease? And why aren't we building more nuclear power? The major events of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and, most recently, Fukushima certainly made people fear nuclear energy and crippled the growth of the industry. But security threats and nuclear waste are not the only reasons why governments and investors are abandoning nuclear energy. The intermittency of renewables must be supported by rapid and responsive energy production. Nuclear power plants could be a stable, low-carbon solution to this problem, but they are complex, expensive, and typically take about 6 years to build... and some have significant delays during construction.

The time it takes varies from project to project, but one report gave an estimate of the cost of a new nuclear power plant in the US of $5,945/kW. On the other hand, the average cost of natural gas generators installed in 2018 was $837/kW, and their construction takes around two years. So you can see why natural gas power plants are more attractive to a utility, even though they are not as carbon friendly as nuclear. According to the State of the Global Nuclear Industry Report 2020, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from nuclear power increased from around $117/MWh in 2015 to $155 in 2019.

In comparison, the LCOE of solar and wind energy reached $40/MWh and $41/MWh. , respectively. The report states: “What is notable about these trends is that renewable energy costs continue to fall due to incremental improvements in manufacturing and installation, while nuclear energy, despite more than half a century of industrial experience, continues to see how costs increase.” The nuclear industry needs an escape hatch... something that makes it more financially attractive, reduces construction time, but at the same time meets all the numerous safety standards needed. That escape route has been to invest in new reactor technology. I have another video about thorium

reactors

on my channel, showing their advantages and challenges, but the other trend I've seen in my research, and in the comments of many of you, has been around

small

modular

reactors (SMRs). ).

It promises to reduce construction cost and time, as well as improve safety. Many people believe they may be the

future

of nuclear energy, but what exactly is it? Compared to "normal" size reactors which are really large, small modular reactors take up much less space, meaning they can be built more quickly and safely in factories and then shipped to the installation site. But how small is "small"? Well, they are small enough to fit in trucks and shipping containers. Compared to conventional large-scale nuclear reactors which must be built on site and have unique designs, SMRs can be manufactured in factories with standardized designs, meaning production can be scaled, costs reduced and the risk of delays reduced. in the construction of nuclear power plants.

The World Nuclear Association defines SMRs as nuclear reactors generally of 300 MW equivalent or less, designed with modularity in mind. To complete the SMR terminology, there are also units called "very small modular reactors", or VSMRs, up to 15 MW. Compared to the world's largest reactor which has surpassed 1.6 GW of power capacity, this new technology is quite small, right? It is not like this? NuScale Power, one of the pioneers in SMR development, has designed a small modular reactor (SMR) that would take up 1% of the space of a conventional reactor, while a typical commercial reactor produces one gigawatt of power. , each NuScale SMR would generate only 60 MW.

The factory-built feature of SMRs can significantly reduce site preparation and construction costs, as well as making it possible to locate them in remote locations that would not normally be possible with a larger power plant. Additionally, SMRs can be linked with other energy sources, including renewables and fossil fuels, to increase grid stability and security. Speaking of money, for about $3 billion, NuScale would install several 12 MW SMRs to build a 720 MW nuclear power plant. That's about 20% cheaper per megawatt than the $14 billion quoted for two traditional 1.25 GW units currently being installed near Waynesboro, Georgia. And that construction has been plagued by delays and a mounting cost of up to $28 billion.

What about security? Nuclear power plants are complex buildings that rely on external power systems such as AC power, backup generators, and batteries to cool reactor fuel in the event of a power loss, increasing accident risks. Suppose something happens that was not considered in the design. In that case, it can cause the system to fail, similar to what happened in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011, when a second unexpected tsunami hit the nuclear plant. Furthermore, maintenance and refueling add additional complexity to nuclear power plants. Every 18 to 24 months, these power plants are shut down for refueling, which typically takes a month without power production, and SMRs may be a promising candidate to reduce these drawbacks.

When we talk about nuclear reactors, we are referring to a containment building with large walls, safety measures and cooling. But with SMRs, it's different. These small reactors fit neatly into other structures or come with their own containment structure. And some of these designs have a long refueling cycle. For example, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation's (USNC) 5 MW modular microreactor... you'll love that name... requires no refueling in its 20-year lifespan, and the ARC-100 small modular reactor from 100 MW would have a similar 20-year refueling cycle. SMRs improve safety and security through lower reactor core thermal power and the use of passive safety systems.

That means they are less reliant on active safety systems such as additional pumps and AC grid power, generators and batteries. NuScale's SMR uses natural water circulation to passively cool its reactor. The thermal safety system incorporates an in-situ water tank located on the sides of the outer container, which removes heat from the core, preventing complete meltdown. In an emergency, specialized valves open automatically, allowing steam to be released from the reactor vessel into the containment vessel. The steam is then condensed and the water returns to the core through the second set of valves at the bottom of the reactor vessel.

This helps cool the reactor. The steam generated by the boiling water recirculates, establishing a passive safety cooling process that lasts until the heat and pressure finally stabilize. All of this power and cooling control is done without external interference, without AC or DC power, without an operator and without additional water, similar to the proposed molten salt thorium reactors. Considering all these advantages, many countries have been investing a lot of money in SMR research and development. Oregon-based NuScale, for example, has spent more than $800 million on its SMR design. In 2010, the company estimated that the capital cost for a 12-module, 540 MW NuScale plant would be approximately $4,000/kW, which increased to $5,078/kW net in 2014 and an LCOE was assumed to be approximately $100/MWh for the first unit.

In June 2018, the company stated that its reactor could produce 20% more energy than initially planned. Subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval, this would reduce the overall capital cost to approximately $4,200/kW and reduce LCOE by 18%. Other American SMR developers include GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, TerraPower, X-Energy and the Bill Gates-backed Hyperion Power Generation. China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) announced in 2019 that it would begin building a demonstration of its 125 MW ACP100 small modular reactor on the northwest side of the current Changjiang nuclear power plant by the end of the year. Canada's ARC Nuclear is also developing a factory-produced, exportable 100 MW sodium coolant nuclear reactor with fixed fuel costs for more than 20 years.

They also have a company called Terrestrial Energy that has been developing and integrating components of two existing designs; the denatured molten salt reactor (DMSR) and the small modular advanced high temperature reactor (smAHRT)... yeah, smart. Russia is also venturing into this area. The nuclear engineering company OKBM Afrikantov inaugurated the first floating nuclear power plant. Akademik Lomonosov, is an electric barge that uses 2 SMRs of 35 MW. It began operation in December 2019 at its permanent location in Chukotka District, and by May 2020 it was fully operational and had delivered 47.3 GWh of energy, covering 20% ​​of the region's demand. But is all this too good to be true?

But before we get to that, I'd like to thank Surfshark for sponsoring this video. I know we don't travel much right now, but I still like to use a VPN when I want to protect my privacy online. SurfShark encrypts all the data you send over the Internet, so your passwords, messages, photos, videos and everything you do online... stays private. Many online services use fairly sophisticated tracking and marketing targeting… a VPN can protect you from that. With SurfShark's CleanWeb, you'll block ads, trackers, and malicious websites, making it safer to use the Internet even at home. One of the best parts about SurfShark is that it's easy to set up on all your devices, whether it's iPhone or Android, Mac or PC.

SurfShark is the only VPN that offers one account to use with an unlimited number of devices. Use my code to get 84% off plus 4 extra months free! SurfShark offers a 30-day money-back guarantee, so there's no risk in trying it out for yourself. The link is in the description below. Thanks to Surfshark and all of you for supporting the channel. So are SMRs too good to be true? Although advances have been made in SMR technology, licensing and certification are a major hurdle for SMRs, as well as potential design changes and increased safety. NuScale's design, for example, is still in the licensing stage and faces major safety issues, including possible problems with the system that automatically shuts down its reactors in emergencies.

Typically, convection circulates water mixed with boron to control the nuclear reaction through the NuScale reactor core. As I mentioned above, if the reactor overheats, it shuts down and the valves release steam into the containment vessel, where it condenses and flows back to the core. However, condensed water may be low in boron, and reviewers are concerned that a low boron level may mean that it does notcould stop the core. This has complicated their approval process. On top of that, although SMRs may be cheaper and safer, they still have to deal with economies of scale. Conventional power plants have thousands of megawatts of power production capacity compared to tens or hundreds of megawatts for SMRs.

An analysis by Utah's Energy Strategies for the Healthy Environment Alliance in 2019 showed an SMR LCOE range of $46.66/MWh to $90.48/MWh, and that's with a lot of uncertainty around resource costs. Nuclear power's biggest rival, natural gas, had an LCOE of $45.56/MWh. Another issue raised by critics of nuclear energy is the unresolved problem of what to do with long-lived radioactive waste. SMRs that use a pressurized water reactor will continue to generate highly radioactive fuel and no country has proposed a permanent solution for how to safely store this type of waste. Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR), wrote: “Spent surplus radioactive fuel from new reactors (SMR) will still require safe storage for hundreds of thousands of years.” -Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) The International Atomic Energy Agency has also written on this topic. “Solutions for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste derived from SMR will be one of the most important factors to take into account when choosing a technology, along with the security of fuel supply.” -Christophe rapid response to balance increasing demand. intermittent energy supply that comes from wind and solar energy.

They may be right; But there are still concerns about SMR technology that need to be addressed, and unresolved issues with nuclear power in general that need solutions before this carbon-free energy source can be considered a globally viable option. Jump into the comments and let me know what you think.And if there's anything I missed with SMRs. If you liked this video, be sure to check out one of the ones I linked here. Make sure to subscribe and hit the notification bell if you think I've earned it. And as always, thank you very much for watching, see you in the next one.