Sponsored by SurfShark VPN.
Although nuclear energy is reliable, powerful, and a clean energy source, it’s still not
considered the go-to solution in the big energy transition we’re experiencing right now.
Solar, wind, and hydro are getting all the attention. Nuclear reactors are big, expensive,
and take a long time to build, even longer to get permitted and there’s also the nuclear
perception issue to overcome. What if we could make them smaller, portable, cheaper, and
safer. Small modular reactors are getting a lot of interest with the first versions
coming online in China and new locations popping up in Canada. As well as ex-Space X engineers
that have made things even smaller … to a micro reactor scale. Could this be the future
of nuclear energy? I’m Matt Ferrell … welcome to Undecided. In December 2020, I published a video exploring
one of the rising stars of modern nuclear technology, small modular reactors (SMRs).
At that time, we still hadn't seen any SMR-based power plants in commercial operation. Several
projects were being developed around the globe, but have been running into roadblocks. The
Oregon-based NuScale, which has spent millions in SMR development, is facing regulatory issues
in their project involving a 12-module, 540 MW power plant. , there have been several
updates and new projects that are worth touching on, like the Chinese SMR demonstration project
I explored in 2020. At the time it hadn't gotten off the drawing board, but the project
finally kicked off construction in July 2021. Ex-Space X engineers have also been making
some news, but first let's quickly review what SMRs are and why so many people keep
pushing for nuclear as the solution to our energy problems. I see it all the time in
my video comments. SMRs operate based on nuclear fission, just
like traditional nuclear reactors, where neutrons split atoms releasing energy. As the atoms
split into smaller atoms, a few extra neutrons are released, which in turn split more atoms
feeding the chain reaction and maintaining this cycle. There are basically two designs of SMRs: thermal-neutron
reactors and fast-neutron reactors. The difference between the two is the same as traditional
nuclear reactors, which (you might have guessed by the word “fast” in the name) is the
speed of the neutrons' flow. Neutrons of thermal-neutron reactors move at a speed of 2.2km/s and contain
an energy amount equal to 0.025eV, where eV means electronvolts, which is the kinetic
energy gained by a single electron speeding up through a potential difference of one volt
in vacuum. On the speedier side, fast-neutron reactors operate with a neutron flow at speeds
around 50,000km/s and an energy amount in the MeV scale --- where MeV stands for megaelectronvolt,
That’s 1 million electron volts, so yeah … it’s got a bit more punch. Fast-neutron
reactors utilize liquid metal for cooling and don't require a moderator; thermal reactors
usually use water for cooling and do need a moderator. However, what really sets SMRs
apart from traditional nuclear reactors is (again, it’s right in their name) their
smaller size and power capacity. While conventional reactors are huge, built on-site, and can
produce up to gigawatts of power, SMRs are much smaller, generate less than 300MW, and
can be built off-site. The enormous size of conventional reactors
makes the construction of nuclear power plants complex and slow, taking about 6 years to
be completed, which also results in higher costs. SMRs can be built much faster, requiring
less staff for location assembly, maintenance, and operation. Their modularity, smaller size,
and the possibility of in-factory construction opens up opportunities for the installation
of multiple units on the same site, as well as simpler component transportation and standardizing
manufacturing. When you can commoditize manufacturing, the prices will drop. When it comes to safety, manufactured SMRs
include the latest safety features and security requirements. SMRs have smaller cores, which
opens up space for the integration of more components into a single vessel, like the
nuclear steam supply system. Their modular design results in simplified and safer systems,
implying reduced severe failure modes, shielding requirements and reduced offsite emergency
planning zones. NuScale's SMR, for example, can passively cool itself utilizing natural
water circulation without needing additional coolant or power supply. On top of that, its
design is immersed in water to assist in cooling the reactor during unusual conditions, not
to mention the specific valves that instantly release heat from the reactor vessel during
an emergency. That all sounds great, but what about putting
that into practice? Well, there’s been some interesting developments recently. But before I get to that, I’d like to thank
Surfshark for sponsoring today’s video. I always recommend using a VPN when using
public Wifi, but VPNs can be very useful even when you’re home. A lot of online services
use some pretty sophisticated commercial targeting and tracking ... a VPN can protect you from
that. SurfShark’s CleanWeb does a great job blocking ads, trackers, and malicious
websites making it safer to use the internet even at home. And you can even make it look like your IP
address is coming from a completely different country. This can come in handy if you want
to stream a video that’s only available from a specific location. One of the best parts of SurfShark is that
it’s easy to set up on all your devices, whether that’s iPhone or Android, Mac or
PC. SurfShark is the only VPN to offer one account to use with an unlimited number of
devices. Use my code to get 83% off plus 3 extra months
for free! SurfShark offers a 30-day money-back guarantee, so there’s no risk to try it
out for yourself. Link is in the description below. Thanks to Surfshark and to all of you
for supporting the channel. Now back to the latest developments in SMRs... At the end of 2021, the world’s first commercial
onshore SMR was started up in China after nine years. The 200MW unit 1 reactor manufactured
by China Huaneng Group Corporation (CNNC) was connected to the grid in northeast China’s
Shandong province. This is the world's first pebble-bed modular high-temperature reactor
cooled with helium gas, instead of liquid water. Using a gas as the reactor coolant
allows the core to heat up to about 1800ÂşF, which can't be achieved using water. Helium
is extremely stable and non-flammable, so it’s a great coolant. The company already has a second unit scheduled
for 2023, but the project's cost hasn’t been disclosed. According to Tsinghua University
research, the commercialization process should cut the cost of each reactor by roughly 60%. Just this past December, GE Hitachi Nuclear
Energy (GEH) and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in Canada, are working on the new Darlington
nuclear site. The plan is to use a BWRX-300 SMR for the project, which uses passive safety
features and is cooled by natural water circulation. OPG had also considered Terrestrial Energy's
Integrated Molten Salt Reactor and X-Xe-100 energy's high-temperature gas-cooled reactor.
The BWRX-300, a name that rolls right off the tongue, is projected to have up to 60%
less capital cost per MW when compared with a typical water-cooled SMR. In addition, it
can be built in 2 to 3 years when combining its modularity with the use of open-top building
techniques, which results in a 90% volume reduction in plant layout. The open-top technique
is pretty much what it sounds like; the walls of the containment facility are built out
first, but the top is left open. This makes it easier to use large capacity cranes to
lower the components in from the top. According to a study developed by the Conference
Board of Canada, a 300 MWe grid-scale SMR could result in thousands of direct and indirect
jobs from project development all the way through decommissioning after 60 years of
operation. In addition, a report from PwC Canada estimates that the project could generate
CAD1.9 billion (USD1.49 billion) in labor income, more than CAD750 million (USD588 million)
in federal, provincial and municipal tax revenue, and CAD2.3 billion (USD1.8 billion) in gross
domestic product (GDP) over its lifespan. The project is expected to be completed as
early as 2028. Comparatively, a report made by Hatch Ltd.
showed that by using Terrestrial energy IMSR400 power plant, which is composed of two integral
molten salt reactors and generators that could deliver 390MW of power, could generate nearly
CAD6.6 billion (USD5.19 billion) of GDP for Ontario and CAD7.9 billion (USD6.22 billion)
of GDP during its lifespan. However, the design and construction of their model would take
9 years. While these are small, what about going even
smaller? Another alternative to conventional nuclear power plants that’s been gaining
attention recently is microreactors. This compact type of reactor can generate from
1MW to 20MW, being able to operate either connected to or islanded from the grid, or
as part of a microgrid. They’re 100-1,000x smaller than a traditional nuclear reactor,
and have power rates from 10-100x times lower than an SMR. If SMRs can be easily transported
by trucks and ships to their final destination, imagine what this technology can bring to
the table. Microreactors can be easily integrated with
renewables in microgrids, used to restore power cuts from natural disasters, and can
be simply moved from one site to another. In addition, when compared to current commercial
reactors, microreactors use low-enriched uranium with uranium-235 in higher concentration.
These reactors run for up to 10 years without refueling and, due to extremely small reactor
volume, they are safer to operate. In the US, former Space-X engineers have launched
the startup Radiant. They’re developing a micro nuclear reactor rated at 1MW that
could provide power for 1,000 homes without needing an external water supply. The micro
reactor uses helium for cooling and has remote monitoring & maintenance functions, which
reduces the risks of damage. Radiant has received $1.2 million from private
investment. However, the technology is patent-pending, so there isn't much technical information
and specifications available to the public yet. So as exciting as all of that is … what’s
holding it back? Why not just “go nuclear.” The main challenges surrounding the SMR market
are related to complicated licensing and regulatory guides, codes and standards of practice, and
legal frameworks around the globe. But beyond the regulatory challenges, there’s also
the cost. While conventional nuclear power has a Levelized
Cost of Electricity, or LCOE ranging from $131/MWh to 204/MWh according to Lazard’s
Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis—Version 15.0, SMRs have an LCOE of $120/MWh for a
typical market in the U.S, Europe, or Japan. This figure is lower than traditional reactors
but still much higher than the LCOE for Thorium reactors, which reach $53.51/MWh with a 30-year
lifespan. On the flip side, the ability to incrementally add modules to an installation
reduces both upfront investment and capital risk of SMRs compared to other nuclear technologies.
However, compared to solar, wind, and hydro, you're looking at something in the range of
$26 to $50/MWh. Even wholesale solar + battery systems are in the range of $85-$158/MWh,
so nuclear isn’t a slam dunk there either. Finally, the biggest issue with nuclear power
is how to dispose of waste. What do we do with the radioactive waste from nuclear power
plants, which can be extremely dangerous for thousands of years? Just here in the US, for
example, 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste is waiting to be permanently disposed of,
but there aren't any permanent geological repositories in operation yet. In the meantime,
the containers storing all of that radioactive material degrade. A more permanent solution proposed by scientists
is to vitrify nuclear waste so that the mixture provides some shielding against radioactive
leakage. However, this process is complex and still has uncertainties. This is where
Thorium reactors can contribute to nuclear waste storage. As I explored in my video revisiting
Thorium reactors, their waste is radioactive for about 500 years, while the waste from
conventional nuclear reactors is still radioactive for thousands of years. Not to sound like I’m banging the “nuclear
is scary” drum too much, it’s an extremely safe power source. When we look at safety
data from power sources, nuclear power has considerably lower death rates from energy
production per TWh when compared to other power sources. While nuclear power has a death
rate from accidents of 0.07/TWh, widely used energy sources like coal and oil have 24.62/TWh
and 18.64, respectively, which is yet another reason we have to move beyond them quickly. Although SMRs and microreactors can address
several problems of conventional reactors, and the SMR market is expected to grow at
a CAGR of 15.8% until 2030, there are still many challenges to overcome. There’s been
some good progress over the past couple of years, and some exciting ones on the horizon,
but whether SMRs and microreactors will be the mainstream technologies for nuclear power
isn't a sure thing. So what do you think of SMRs? Will they gain
a foothold and become part of our energy mix? Jump in the comments and let me know. And
if you have knowledge on this, or work in the industry, please share your experience
so we can learn more together. You can also join my Discord server and talk to other members
of the community. The link is in the description. And thanks as always to my patrons and a big
welcome to new Supporter+ member Glen Campbell. All of your direct support really helps with
producing these videos and to reduce my dependence on the almighty YouTube algorithm. Speaking
of which, if you liked this video be sure to check out one of the ones I have linked
right here. And subscribe and hit the notification bell if you think I’ve earned it. Thanks
so much for watching and I’ll see you in the next one.
Imo having micro NE increase the chances of potential risks based on enthropic factors.
i think a shipping container is about as small you want to go and your going HAVE to go fluid fuel for that.