Climate Change Debate

[Tredman]

You've lost me mate?

This is like a giant Co2 vacuum cleaner for the air isn't it?

Because of the huge power requirements each one will get its own Small Modular Reactor - basically something similar to what powers a nuclear submarine.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Because of the huge power requirements each one will get its own Small Modular Reactor - basically something similar to what powers a nuclear submarine.

Ah I see.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Because of the huge power requirements each one will get its own Small Modular Reactor - basically something similar to what powers a nuclear submarine.

Rolls Royce are grabbing all this (modular reactors) by the scruff of the neck, rather then EDF etc.

It is probably worth investing in them.

 

[visage]

They said if scaled (and the absorber would need to be 10x the size of Buckingham palace) then yes it would have a material impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is in co-development with aviation as biofuel for aviation does not scale and has a very negative environmental impact.

They did say it would need an SMR too, which is cool but gives an idea of the energy needed too.

SMRs are a white elephant.

 

[Tredman]

SMRs are a white elephant.

They’re happening, government is about to award a huge contract for them I think.

 

[visage]

Yes, possibly - we'll see whether they're contracts to actually build some, or if its just throwing more money for continuing investigations.

They're still an awful idea.

 

[visage]

UK's SMR selection process 'into final stage'

GE Hitachi, Holtec, Rolls-Royce SMR and Westinghouse have been issued with an Invitation to Submit Final Tenders, with Great British Nuclear saying it remains on track to select the chosen technology before the summer. ;

www.world-nuclear-news.org

This suggests a 'final investment decision' wont happen until 2029.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

They're still an awful idea.

Why?

 

[AndyWolves]

Why?

i'd imagine anything with nuclear will be the cost to implement given how regulated and controlled everything needs to be, plus the time it takes to build the thing

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Yes it's expensive, but it's as clean, safe and efficient as you get.

The modular Reactors are much smaller, so obviously quicker to build.

 

[visage]

Why?

Well....

Firstly, SMRs dont exist. There are no designs that are a) regulatory compliant and b) economically viable.

But we can speculate. Nuclear power stations are, traditionally big - because thats the most economic way to mitigate their huge cost. But those huge costs make nuclear hard to build and hard to finance. HPC will cost nearly 50 *billion* pounds once it comes online, and will produced electricity that is more expensive than any other option.

So even if SMRs can be built at a price per MW comparable to existing nuclear they'll still be expensive - and expensive for decades, because thats the timescale they'll need to operate at to even hope to pay off their construction cost. And the only hope you have of getting that price parity is if you build literally thousands of them - and why would you when renewables are easier and cheaper to build and produce cheaper electricity?

At the moment the only funtion SMRs serve is to funnel research money into the pockets of companies like RR and Lockheed Martin.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

A version of SMRs exist that power submarines, I don't think it's as far away as you think.

Russia and China already have active SMRs too.

This in principle is nuclear power on a much smaller scale, which is why it is far more feasible and cost efficient than traditional nuclear plants like HPC.

But yes, like everything it will be, and is corrupt.

 

[visage]

Submarine reactors are tiny - about a tenth of the size of the SMRs that are proposed now, and obviously the economics of a military reactor arent the same as those for civilian use.

And the active SMRs that Russia and China have are experimental, and not suitable for mass production - and they're obviously not regulatory approved.

The small = cost efficient doesnt hold- the reason why nuclear power stations are typically massive is that massive stations are more cost effective. Now, the counterargument is that modularisation will make it more cost effective to build small ones, but we cant be sure of that until someone comes up with a credible plan of how to finance and build thousands of them in a regulatory complaint way.

 

[visage]

Essentially my objection is that we're pushing billions of pounds of investment is something thats entirely speculative, while ignoring much cheaper options that a) are proven to work and b) are available right now.

Its symptomatic of the techbro culture of chasing something shiny and impractical versus something thats boring but works.