Source: US ‘disappointed’ that Rolls-Royce will build UK’s first small modular reactors | Nuclear power | The Guardian Keir Starmer has announced that the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactors will be built in north Wales ... Wylfa on the island of Anglesey, or Ynys Môn, will be home to three small modular reactors (SMRs) to be built by British manufacturer Rolls-RoyceSMR. The government said it will invest £2.5bn. SMRs are a new . . . technology aiming to produce nuclear power stations in factories to drive down costs and speed up installation. Rolls-Royce plans to build reactors, each capable of generating 470 megawatts of power, mainly in Derby. This works for me as I have two EVs and A/C in warm weather. Bob Wilson
I remember there was an incident, typhoon or tsunami, where a nuclear powered boat or ship connected to local grid at a port after a natural disaster. Somewhere on the Western Pacific. My understanding is the early ship and boat nuclear power plants were boiling water reactors. Still the case today? Same architecture as Rickover pushed through? Reading the Wiki: United States naval reactors - Wikipedia Bob Wilson
Small nuke reactors are not small at all when you do true cost accounting on low level and high level nuke waste management for its entire lifespan. Most of these hairbrained schemes are about pocketing the money up front and then having an easy out when cost over runs cause the project to fail before it even gets started.
470 MWe (electric) isn't really "small". Other sources describe SMRs as 300 MWe or less. ... unless they mean MW-thermal.
Excellent point! MW-thermal - 100% of the total energy from the fission reactions ~30-35% thermal efficiency - the actual, usable power generated best if coupled with a battery farm to handle peaks and valleys in actual usage you still have find a second use for 65-70% of the waste heat without making rivers into fish soup The big advantage is paying the "engineering" cost once and using manufacturing to clamp the building and operational costs. USA reactors have been "one of" designs which significantly increases the cost as each one is a custom build. They are like "disposable" rockets, way too expensive until SpaceX and the recent Blue Origin booster landings changed the game. Bob Wilson
Compared to coal ash and CO{2} heating, it is a more manageable problem. However, I'm interested in proposed liquid salt reactors. The theory is in-plant processing of the molten salt allows chemical extraction and reprocessing of the still usable fuel while significantly reducing the volume of radioactive waste. Waste that can be further reduced by cycling around the nuclear fission close enough to transmute them into faster decaying, soon to be low level waste. A second advantage is higher heat temperature which improves efficiency of the generator system. More power with less waste heat. But the engineering faces significant materials challenges. Bob Wilson
