Trump Gives Tiny Nuclear Reactors a Billion-Dollar Boost

[nahmus]

Didn't see this reported anywhere. Figured the greenies would like this since it can also burn spent fuel from other reactors.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34431835/nuscale-small-modular-reactors-government-grant/

Small modular reactor startup NuScale Power has a new, unlikely ally after a tough couple of weeks in the press: President Donald Trump's Department of Energy.

After the small-scale western utility Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems had several small cities pull out of its planned pilot program with NuScale, the entire utility group started to grumble about the future. But on October 16, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) approved a $1.4 billion grant to help offset the costs of test driving the new technology.

“The award, to be spread out over 10 years, is still subject to appropriations by Congress,” the Washington Examiner reports. “That could be manageable given that bipartisan majorities have supported NuScale over the years for its potential to prove the viability of small reactors, an emissions-free technology of a type that has never been deployed and expected to be safer and cheaper than traditional large nuclear projects that have struggled economically.”


To call nuclear energy “emissions-free” is a gentle kind of misleading, but it’s true that NuScale has led public imagination about the idea of small modular reactors. And with a design that’s essentially a “new and improved” version of the light water reactors that power every American nuclear power plant today, NuScale has had less regulatory red tape between its dreams and a soon-to-be-realized reality in its pilot projects in the western U.S.


As a refresher, in the NuScale reactor, a core is kept cool by circulating normal fresh water, as happens in today’s operating nuclear plants on a much, much larger scale. Inside huge nuclear towers, most of the space is dedicated to cooling. The NuScale reactor, however, uses gravity and buoyancy to naturally circulate the cooling water. And the size difference is staggering: “About the size of two school buses stacked end to end, you could fit around 100 of them in the containment chamber of a large conventional reactor,” WIRED reports.


The DoE invests a great deal in a huge variety of energy technology and research, and while NuScale seems like a darling in a way that has even drawn some derision, it’s far from the only near-future option for nuclear, let alone renewable energy. And it’s common for governments to heavily subsidize advancing technology in the public interest, which is why solar was just named the “cheapest energy ever” by the International Energy Agency.

As the Examiner frames it, NuScale’s issue was becoming one of energy threshold. Utah Associated had a number of cities signed on for the trial, but two dropped out in recent weeks. And like a game of Among Us or a 20-pound Thanksgiving turkey, you need a certain number of participants for this 720 megawatt pilot plant to be worth it. The DoE funding will bring the kilowatt hour cost down to what the Utah Associated participants need.


Although NuScale has touted itself as a lower-cost version of traditional nuclear energy in the U.S., the process to get an entire new paradigm of nuclear plant online still takes a lot of time, study, and funding. The date for opening the first reactor for Utah Associated was already pushed from 2026 to 2029, which is still pretty soon for nuclear.

In the meantime, large plants will continue to approach their end-of-life dates. In places that don’t opt to invest in renewables or some kind of next-generation nuclear, the reliance on fossil fuel plants could not just stay the same, but increase. The DoE’s diverse investment reflects a goal to have a variety of options when the time comes.

 

[Provience]

well, fuck, that's good to hear!

the end of life cycle for existing nuke plants is the great tragedy of the solar/wind mandates :(

 

[bigun]

I am glad they are working on small scale plants finally.

 

[subybaja]

About damned time.

Idiots love dilithium crystals, but wet themselves at the real thing. "Renewables" are a pathetic retreat into some pastoral fantasy, not the future.

 

[Arickvan]

modern technology + nukes, im sure we can make some major progress

just think about space x updating rockets

fawking touchpad controls *gasp* imagine the real upgrades that you cant see, or the fact that it fall back to earth and lands standing upright

 

[TheFlyingDildocupine]

I am glad they are working on small scale plants finally.

Seriously, I remember reading about stuff like this in popular science back in the 90s.

 

[bigun]

Seriously, I remember reading about stuff like this in popular science back in the 90s.

Almost every SciFi writer has had them since the 50s by name, early ones called them by other names like "harnessed the power of the inner earth, or sun".
Heinlein's Mobile Infrantry in Starship Troopers depended upon them as did the tanks in Hammer's Slammers, Keith Laumer's BOLOs. Then lets not forget She Va 9 known as Bun-Bun from the book Hells Faire by John Ringo

 

[Norm]

I read something a year or two ago about small scale sodium reactors. It seems like a good alternative also. Wind and solar are not a viable solution unless you’re retarded. As tech gets better so will nuke safety.

 

[Provience]

Seriously, I remember reading about stuff like this in popular science back in the 90s.

there is absolutely no doubt in anybodies mind that government regulations are the only reason we aren't a significantly more nuke driven society today.

oh, i mean "save the whales, buy windmills, embezzle money with solar!"

 

[BUCKLAND]

Seriously, I remember reading about stuff like this in popular science back in the 90s.

And......


SMR

 

[Mr.Ratbastard]

I hear Trump writes mean Tweets though.

 

[Eric]

More taxpayer dollars getting pissed away. What the people use for an energy source is a decision that can be made by consumers and the free market without government micromanagement or taxpayer dollars.

 

[rockota]

More taxpayer dollars getting pissed away. What the people use for an energy source is a decision that can be made by consumers and the free market without government micromanagement or taxpayer dollars.

you realize that energy is essentially nationalized via regulation already, correct? While I agree with you on the free market, this move is probably the closest thing we've ever seen to removing barriers to the free market in the energy sector in, dare I say, decades?

 

[bigun]

there is absolutely no doubt in anybodies mind that government regulations are the only reason we aren't a significantly more nuke driven society today.

oh, i mean "save the whales, buy windmills, embezzle money with solar!"

I was taking an instrumentation course at the hall, older guy teaching was telling us there were a number of new Nuke reactors that had passed all the hoops, paid off all the environmentalists and other special interest groups and in the process of going out for bid. Then Fucashima happened, the old guy came into class that night darn near in tears, saying that all future Nuke plans would be scrapped over the hysteria caused by the accident. I wounder what he thinks now that a Republican President is pushing them again.

 

[87manche]

you realize that energy is essentially nationalized via regulation already, correct? While I agree with you on the free market, this move is probably the closest thing we've ever seen to removing barriers to the free market in the energy sector in, dare I say, decades?

unfortunately this is the case.

and it's a shitshow.
Ohio HB6, google that bullshit.

 

[Will12785]

you realize that energy is essentially nationalized via regulation already, correct? While I agree with you on the free market, this move is probably the closest thing we've ever seen to removing barriers to the free market in the energy sector in, dare I say, decades?

Ah yes, the government propping up business is very close to free market.

 

[Pocahontas]

Problem as I understand it is you can build 10 nat gas/coal plants for 1 nuke. Was around a billion for a nat gas/coal plant and 10 for a nuke. Also the nuke plant takes 2-3 times as long to construct. From a utility perspective its much better business to build the nat gas/coal plants than nukes.

One could wonder how things would be different if the nukes were being pushed for last 20 years instead of wind/solar.

 

[rockota]

Ah yes, the government propping up business is very close to free market.

i think you missed the point. All energy is over regulated to the point that doing anything nuclear is almost impossible due to regulations. This might be the first time government has even pretended to get out of the way of nuclear energy

 

[Motorcharge]

Billion and a half, but who's counting?

 

[Eric]

. . . While I agree with you on the free market, this move is probably the closest thing we've ever seen to removing barriers to the free market in the energy sector in, dare I say, decades?

Fair enough. Irony is real.

 

[87manche]

i think you missed the point. All energy is over regulated to the point that doing anything nuclear is almost impossible due to regulations. This might be the first time government has even pretended to get out of the way of nuclear energy

I mean, we hucked how many billions at windmills?

if we're gona spend tax dollars, at least make it towards something that's actually solving the problem.

 

[[486]]

Problem as I understand it is you can build 10 nat gas/coal plants for 1 nuke. Was around a billion for a nat gas/coal plant and 10 for a nuke. Also the nuke plant takes 2-3 times as long to construct. From a utility perspective its much better business to build the nat gas/coal plants than nukes.

gotta wonder on fueling costs on both over the lifetime of the plant
as construction cost of a power plant is generally nothing compared to that

 

[Pocahontas]

;n172302]
gotta wonder on fueling costs on both over the lifetime of the plant
as construction cost of a power plant is generally nothing compared to that

I think that they will generally buy the land the coal or nat gas is in and mine it and send it by rail. It was a year or two ago when we had the conversation, they are a controler for the 3nd biggest power co in the state so they know what they are talking about.

Guess it could be flipped on its head and costs of procuring fuel for the nuke and disposal/re-enrichment can't be cheap. Also you have to take into cost the upgrading of lines to carry the power generallynukes are only large reactors. I was under the assumption it is more efficient to run smallest plants you can for the given power and have many of them. The ramping up and down of the power seemed to be the biggest challenge.

From what they were saying the only new nuke was in ky/tenn area and it was actually a state or nat government run utility. It was in a rural area and gov so money was no object.

May be cheaper at the end of the day but the delay in construction time, the possibility of it being more expensive and not the availability of people to work on them. As we as a nation have so few of them you need a very specific crew to run them vs transferring people already in the system.

That was basically the gist I got from the hour or two conversation we had about it. I wish we had more nukes but it makes sense why we don't. Why I had mentioned the gov pushing it with credits and incentives.

 

[Mountain-Dweller]

Where do I get one of these "Tiny Nuclear Reactors" could really use one here in California the land of the Power Outage!

 

[evernoob]

I don't want small-scale plants. The safety of nuclear is based on restricting it to fewer competent operators. The last thing anyone in favor of Nuclear should be advocating is scattering nuclear reactors all over the place.

Nuclear power should be a few large plants in fewer locations, and use the electric grid to distribute it. Don't fix what ain't broke. Any new technology that can be adapted to make small reactors safer, will provide greater safety in fewer reactors.

There WILL be a nuclear meltdown. That is not the issue. Just like one day a huge asteroid WILL collide with the Earth, or the sun WILL expand and fuck us up.

So we should lock reactors down to fewer out of the way locations.

Thermodynamic losses are better managed on a larger scale as well.

Total waste of money when we could be building extremely safe, powerful reactors out in the boondocks right now. I mean breaking ground right this instant.

Fucking waste

 

[Firstram]

I don't want small-scale plants. The safety of nuclear is based on restricting it to fewer competent operators. The last thing anyone in favor of Nuclear should be advocating is scattering nuclear reactors all over the place.

Nuclear power should be a few large plants in fewer locations, and use the electric grid to distribute it. Don't fix what ain't broke. Any new technology that can be adapted to make small reactors safer, will provide greater safety in fewer reactors.

There WILL be a nuclear meltdown. That is not the issue. Just like one day a huge asteroid WILL collide with the Earth, or the sun WILL expand and fuck us up.

So we should lock reactors down to fewer out of the way locations.

Thermodynamic losses are better managed on a larger scale as well.

Total waste of money when we could be building extremely safe, powerful reactors out in the boondocks right now. I mean breaking ground right this instant.

Fucking waste

Absolutely.

 

[Provience]

Problem as I understand it is you can build 10 nat gas/coal plants for 1 nuke. Was around a billion for a nat gas/coal plant and 10 for a nuke. Also the nuke plant takes 2-3 times as long to construct. From a utility perspective its much better business to build the nat gas/coal plants than nukes.

One could wonder how things would be different if the nukes were being pushed for last 20 years instead of wind/solar.

yup, massively different.

Have nukes had some great tragedies? absolutely.

do they need standards and oversight? Certainly.

is the overbearing regulation, intended to keep them from coming on line or being extended from continued use, directly responsible for the difference in life cycle cost between nat gas and nuke? i'd say a good bit

 

[Provience]

I don't want small-scale plants. The safety of nuclear is based on restricting it to fewer competent operators. The last thing anyone in favor of Nuclear should be advocating is scattering nuclear reactors all over the place.

Nuclear power should be a few large plants in fewer locations, and use the electric grid to distribute it. Don't fix what ain't broke. Any new technology that can be adapted to make small reactors safer, will provide greater safety in fewer reactors.

There WILL be a nuclear meltdown. That is not the issue. Just like one day a huge asteroid WILL collide with the Earth, or the sun WILL expand and fuck us up.

So we should lock reactors down to fewer out of the way locations.

Thermodynamic losses are better managed on a larger scale as well.

Total waste of money when we could be building extremely safe, powerful reactors out in the boondocks right now. I mean breaking ground right this instant.

Fucking waste

i'd gladly see large scale going on to service a great many areas. i'm still going to support small scale to support other areas. no need to toss out the good in favor of the great.

if lower cost and smaller scale units can gain traction, it makes it much more difficult to fight against large scale

 

[rockota]

I don't want small-scale plants. The safety of nuclear is based on restricting it to fewer competent operators. The last thing anyone in favor of Nuclear should be advocating is scattering nuclear reactors all over the place.

Nuclear power should be a few large plants in fewer locations, and use the electric grid to distribute it. Don't fix what ain't broke. Any new technology that can be adapted to make small reactors safer, will provide greater safety in fewer reactors.

There WILL be a nuclear meltdown. That is not the issue. Just like one day a huge asteroid WILL collide with the Earth, or the sun WILL expand and fuck us up.

So we should lock reactors down to fewer out of the way locations.

Thermodynamic losses are better managed on a larger scale as well.

Total waste of money when we could be building extremely safe, powerful reactors out in the boondocks right now. I mean breaking ground right this instant.

Fucking waste

How many military vessels do you want to be locked down to fewer, out of the way locations?

 

[M92PV4U]

I was taking an instrumentation course at the hall, older guy teaching was telling us there were a number of new Nuke reactors that had passed all the hoops, paid off all the environmentalists and other special interest groups and in the process of going out for bid. Then Fucashima happened, the old guy came into class that night darn near in tears, saying that all future Nuke plans would be scrapped over the hysteria caused by the accident. I wounder what he thinks now that a Republican President is pushing them again.

Related to your post:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nishan...lease-radioactive-fukishima-water-into-ocean/