Posted on 05/31/2024 1:01:34 PM PDT by Red Badger
Key Findings
* Small modular reactors still look to be too expensive, too slow to build, and too risky to play a significant role in transitioning from fossil fuels in the coming 10-15 years.
* Investment in SMRs will take resources away from carbon-free and lower-cost renewable technologies that are available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward significantly in the coming 10 years.
* Experience with operating and proposed SMRs shows that the reactors will continue to cost far more and take much longer to build than promised by proponents.
* Regulators, utilities, investors and government officials should embrace the reality that renewables, not SMRs, are the near-term solution to the energy transition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The rhetoric from small modular reactor (SMR) advocates is loud and persistent: This time will be different because the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued large reactor construction projects will not be repeated with the new designs. But the few SMRs that have been built (or have been started) paint a different picture—one that looks startingly similar to the past. Significant construction delays are still the norm and costs have continued to climb.
IEEFA has taken a close look at the data available from the four SMRs currently in operation or under construction, as well as new information about projected costs from some of the leading SMR developers in the U.S. The results of the analysis show little has changed from our previous work. SMRs still are too expensive, too slow to build, and too risky to play a significant role in transitioning from fossil fuels in the coming 10 to 15 years.
We believe these findings should serve as a cautionary flag for all energy industry participants. In particular, we recommend that:
Regulators who will be asked to approve utility or developer-backed SMR proposals should craft restrictions to prevent delays and cost increases from being pushed onto ratepayers.
Utilities that are considering SMRs should be required to compare the technology’s uncertain costs and completion dates with the known costs and construction timetables of renewable alternatives. Utilities that still opt for the SMR option should be required to put shareholder funds at risk if costs and construction times exceed utility estimates.
Investors and bankers weighing any SMR proposal should carefully conduct their due diligence. Things will go wrong, imperiling the chances for full recovery of any invested funds.
State and federal governments should require that estimated SMR construction costs and schedules be publicly available so that utility ratepayers, taxpayers and investors are better able to assess the magnitude of the SMR-related financial risks that they may be forced to bear.
Finally, it is vital that this debate consider the opportunity costs associated with the SMR push. The dollars invested in SMRs will not be available for use in building out a wind, solar and battery storage resource base. These carbon-free and lower-cost technologies are available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward significantly in the coming 10 years—years when SMRs will still be looking for licensing approval and construction funding.
Translation: We are worried about them.
What is the ideological bent of IEEFA? Who funds it?
Consider the source. A quick review of the IEEEEEEEEE reveals that they mostly profane just about anything that is not carbon neutral, advancing climate change and the like. Every random staff bio I looked at shows some element of econut. I wonder who funds them? I wonder if they are a not for profit? I wonder if they have tax returns? I wonder if they reveal their supporters? I wonder if they are telling the whole cloth truth or just the convenient one?
It looks as if somebody’s ox is being gored a bit here. They’re concerned about the modulars drawing funds away from development of “renewables” that aren’t ready to pull their weight yet, and about how slow those reactors are to field in the face of environmental obstacles they themselves are helping to throw up.
The cost of the SMR will drop once in production. Nuclear is the only technology with a chance of meeting carbon reduction targets, assuming one is worried about that.
And yet, there’s these little tubes in the sea called nucular submarines, who seem to do okay with their little hot motors.
BS!
the US navy operates over 70 “small” reactors accident free
for over 60 years.
This article is just “Karen” hand wringing.
You know if you factor women out of the voting picture
we would be far better off.
The company’s Natrium reactor demonstration project—the nation’s first commercial advanced reactor of its kind—would be built on land in Wyoming near one of the state’s retiring coal plants. Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 would operate as a 345-MW sodium-cooled reactor in conjunction with molten salt–based energy storage.
my thought exactly. My granddaughter will go into submarine service after graduating from US Naval Academy and going to Nuclear Power School for the next two years.
"Investment in SMRs will take resources away from carbon-free and lower-cost renewable technologies"
As if nuclear belched carbon, for one thing. But regardless of that, some form of energy generation has to be "base-load", supplying power when their precious solar and wind boondoggles fail. Like at NIGHT, and when there's too little wind, (or too MUCH). That means either nuclear or fossil fuels, or hydro.
It is wind and solar that are incapable of supplying energy for the world.
This Population Control Marxism detests any energy source that can sustain a healthy, growing population.
"...IEEFA’s market-based research shows how the rise of the new energy economy, where renewable energy sources are steadily eroding reliance on fossil fuels, makes financial sense for investors, governments, businesses, communities and ratepayers..."
And there we have it.
“steadily eroding” my ass.
Exactly.
putting young men and women together at close quarters underwater for long periods of time — makes an ordinary person go hmm. what could go wrong?
but it appears they have been doing for a couple decades without any incidents that have been so bad — that they made for big splashy headlines.
so I there is no problem I guess.
Hello my name is Achmed Smith and I woould like to purchase 100 of your compact reactors...tell me does that come a full compliment of radioactive material or is that extra?...fine, fine, I’ll put that on my Iranian Amex and can you’ll ship those to a warehouse in Afghanistan? Perfect.
Invest accordingly.
I had an activity a few years ago with a company called NuScale.
They are into all of this.
My work there was unrelated to their program.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.