Excellent and true article. I worked in the 60s at the uk atomic energy site which designed and developed nuclear reactors. At least one reactor had progressed to the final stage of supplying a fair amount of electricity to the National Grid for quite a few years with no problems. However it was decided to go ahead with the large size reactors and stop development of the various different types being researched even though some of them again had gone to quite a sophisticated level. What most people seem to have missed is that in the future we are going to need the best load power generation capability that is climate change invariable and also available all the time. Also able to produce huge amounts of gigawatts with a pretty reasonable long life. With these characteristics it's is likely to be expensive but that's not the point is it. there is not an alternative to nuclear power and we should be building as many as we can.
I find your take on this article surprising. Maybe I am missing something, but isn't the author saying the opposite? Many different designs have been tried, and most dropped. Building any nuclear reactor is very expensive and takes a long time. There simply isn't enough time and expertise (and funding) available to build many of them, regardless of relative size. It's a dead end. As for climate invariable - where are most nuclear power stations located? On the coast. Is the coast going to be impacted by climate change? Yes. How? It's going to move inland, sometimes by many miles. Also, more storms and storm surges massively increase the risk to existing NPS sites, requiring much more expensive mitigation (see Hinkley C). So, costs rise even further. It's a spiral of despair.
Firstly the uk built quickly two different successful reactors classified as small relative to the huge ones currently being buit. Neither expensive nor took a long time. Plus a successful fast breeder. And easy to replicate these. I know because I worked at the uk reactor develooment site. Neither needs to be near water. So your answer is totally incorrect. Research winfrith, sghwr and dragon
Sghwr 100mw provided power to the grid for 23 years 650mw variant also designed as scale up. We could be building lots now.
A successful fast breeder? Dounreay was closed in 1998 after multiple problems. You're missing the key arguments in my post about the relative diseconomies of scale of smaller nuclear power plant.
Rubbish it successfully supplied the grid for 15 years. It was shut down for political reasons. We should have several now greatly helping with our power problems.
There was an article in the Eastern Daily Press today talking about IMSR (Integral Molten Salt Reactor) at the Bacton site. Maybe in 2030s. It was a confusing article.
Great article David! Sounds like they are looking for a marriage proposal by putting lipstick on that old piglet.
Excellent and true article. I worked in the 60s at the uk atomic energy site which designed and developed nuclear reactors. At least one reactor had progressed to the final stage of supplying a fair amount of electricity to the National Grid for quite a few years with no problems. However it was decided to go ahead with the large size reactors and stop development of the various different types being researched even though some of them again had gone to quite a sophisticated level. What most people seem to have missed is that in the future we are going to need the best load power generation capability that is climate change invariable and also available all the time. Also able to produce huge amounts of gigawatts with a pretty reasonable long life. With these characteristics it's is likely to be expensive but that's not the point is it. there is not an alternative to nuclear power and we should be building as many as we can.
I find your take on this article surprising. Maybe I am missing something, but isn't the author saying the opposite? Many different designs have been tried, and most dropped. Building any nuclear reactor is very expensive and takes a long time. There simply isn't enough time and expertise (and funding) available to build many of them, regardless of relative size. It's a dead end. As for climate invariable - where are most nuclear power stations located? On the coast. Is the coast going to be impacted by climate change? Yes. How? It's going to move inland, sometimes by many miles. Also, more storms and storm surges massively increase the risk to existing NPS sites, requiring much more expensive mitigation (see Hinkley C). So, costs rise even further. It's a spiral of despair.
Firstly the uk built quickly two different successful reactors classified as small relative to the huge ones currently being buit. Neither expensive nor took a long time. Plus a successful fast breeder. And easy to replicate these. I know because I worked at the uk reactor develooment site. Neither needs to be near water. So your answer is totally incorrect. Research winfrith, sghwr and dragon
Sghwr 100mw provided power to the grid for 23 years 650mw variant also designed as scale up. We could be building lots now.
A successful fast breeder? Dounreay was closed in 1998 after multiple problems. You're missing the key arguments in my post about the relative diseconomies of scale of smaller nuclear power plant.
Rubbish it successfully supplied the grid for 15 years. It was shut down for political reasons. We should have several now greatly helping with our power problems.
I worked for the ukaea on reactor development.
Nuscale Power Corp has a market cap of $5bn. Are you saying it’s all hot air?
I didn't bother mentioning NuScale as it has failed in its planned development, see https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/. I'm not going to comment on how and why people decide to invest their money in ventures like NuScale - but I wouldn't!
Yes they have given up...
Last Energy. I looked it up.
What it does: 35110 - Production of electricity; 35300 - Steam and air conditioning supply
Who it’s owned by: Last Energy Inc, described as a start-up October 2024 by Reuters
Mini company, so audited accounts not needed. Has a deficit of £1.2m
Has been going since November 2021
DESNZ would give it £40m?
Probably not!
There was an article in the Eastern Daily Press today talking about IMSR (Integral Molten Salt Reactor) at the Bacton site. Maybe in 2030s. It was a confusing article.