Does Nuclear Energy Have a Future in the US? A Promising Technology could be reactors scaled down to small size, known as small modular reactors or SMRs

American Thinker ^ | 06/19/2022 | William Levin

[SeekAndFind]

Outside the United States, nuclear is entering a golden era, especially in China. There is a record building boom in current and announced plants, including more than 225 plants in China alone. Costs are being driven down to exceptionally affordable levels. Best practice current nuclear plants deliver costs of $0.05/kwh versus the average U.S. electric bill of $0.14/kwh. Most impressively, technology is rapidly evolving to safe, low-waste fourth-generation technology, or GEN IV, expected to be commercialized by 2030.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, GEN IV high-temperature, low-pressure plants "offer impressive safety features and can be easy to construct and affordable to maintain." High temperature means GEN IV nuclear plants can generate electricity, which accounts for some 20% of world energy demand, and, for the first time, replace fossil fuels in process industries that rely on heat.

This opens a new world to nuclear and will, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, in addition to all-important electric generation, power "hydrogen production, desalination, district heating, petroleum refining and ammonia production." As process energy is the second largest source of energy, powered by fossil fuels, the coming dual electric and process heat output of GEN IV nuclear is of huge significance.

Despite all this positive, yet virtually unreported news, nuclear energy in the U.S. has in essence been abandoned, with two exceptions. Utility operators working through supplemental license renewals (SLRs) are seeking to extend the useful lives of the existing nuclear fleet, but this is a mere stopgap effort and is now subject to a freeze by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Prospectively, tech entrepreneurs, supported by generous Department of Energy subsidies, aim to commercialize experimental reactors scaled down to small size, known as small modular reactors or SMRs.

[shotgun]

I was a pipefitter back when WPPSS killed off their plans to build 5 nukes in Washington State, completing only 1 unit.

They had 3 designs; Plant 2 was a standalone GE BWR, Plants 1&4 were next door to Plant 2 at Hanford and were Westinghouse PWR units, and Plants 3&5 were also Westinghouse PWR units in Satsop (Aberdeen).

Plants 1 & 3 were fraught with re-design and cost overruns. By the time they broke ground on 4&5 they had those issues resolved and construction on those units was outpacing their twins. But it was too late. WPPSS defaulted on $25 billion in bonds, and they were doomed.

Only Plant 2 (this was actually the 1st plant started) survived and was completed in 1984.

I also worked on Palo Verde which built 3 identical plants outside of Phoenix. They had the same issue with their Plant 1 but the next two were each completed faster than the one before it.

Why the US decided to have virtually all of their nukes designed as 1-off custom units was stupid and at the end of the day was part of the public perception problem. Cost + Danger (real and fabricated), killed it

[Adder]

I can see that. I agree it’s a good concept.
Next will be years of site battles by greenies opposed to anything.

[Adder]

Will these be any different?
[I hope so but history says no.]