Always think about the US Nuclear Navy when the topic of SMRs come up ...the Nautilus submarine was first to launch in1954 and presently 80 or so vessels (mostly carriers and submarines) make up that fleet. Nautilus was powered by the S2W reactor developed by Westinghouse. With a pretty excellent record over 70+ years other big names like GE and Bechtel have also served to develop and innovate. Westinghouse is currently bringing to market their eVinci 5MW micro reactor. Makes me wonder why they wouldn't get at least an honorable mention now and then in SMR discussions.
Good rundown at this point in the race - if that's what it is. Suggest you handicap this in 12 months to see who's left standing. The culling has started.
My FIL (who worked in the industry for 50 years) told me about France's recycling, years ago. For some reason it seems to be a WELL KEPT secret... as that is ALWAYS the first question posed when talking about nuclear. Seems they've been doing so for around 50 years!
There are about 5 serious contenders outside the US. Rolls-Royce is a contender because their only real competitor in Europe is Nuward (EDF). The Europeans are in deep shit on energy policy, and everyone serious in energy knows as much, given the abject failures of wind and solar to be cheap and affordable at scale. Currently, the European grid is held together by the large plant nuclear of France and Sweden, and the abundant hydro of countries like Sweden and Norway.
There are lots of clever tricks being performed with LCOE analysis, but nobody friendly to wind/solar counts the cost of building energy storage, massive requirements to upgrade energy infrastructure, or the fact that the entire approach requires redundant gas plants, idling 70% of the time.
That being said, Rolls-Royce has an incredibly solid reputation, particularly with regard to precision engineering. I looked at them as a potential investment around the time that the UN, EU and IEA all began to change their tune on nuclear and gas power as a 'transition' technology. Gutted I didn't invest in them.
The other thing to consider is the ecosystem, something I kicked myself for not thinking of at the time. The emerging major players will be keen on brand association through outsourcing component manufacture to Rolls-Royce. They have exceptionally high brand equity. Rolls-Royce involvement in the supply chain probably lowers the cost of capital as well as making IPOs more attractive through de-risking. Even if Rolls-Royce don't emerge as a major player they will likely play a role in future developments as a component supplier, perhaps emulating Arm Holdings in this respect.
I asked AI to verify my viewpoint with a few additional prompts. Rolls-Royce involvement likely lowers the costs of capital by 1-3%.
Nice to see progress. Large scale projects are a hedge against small scale failure or delay. It will look silly if small scale delivers, and genius if it doesn't. Trump understands the value of energy security.
Disappointed it has taken the Pentagon this long to follow up on Admr. Rickover's initiative with SMR's for the Nuclear Navy??? Then again maybe it is a very different president???
It's been attributed to Gen George S. Patton, but whoever, NRC needs to get the message "Lead, Follow, or get out of the way"
I think TerraPower wins but GE will get to scale the fastest as they don't require a domestic HALEU supply chain. The dark horse for sure is Valor simply by the speed they're going at. The issue with Valor, reactors aren't limited by engineering but commercialization which means getting pass the FOAK risk. Valor is one of the few that doesn't have a long term contract signed and with their modular design need a massive initial order to kickstart their economies of scale. But boy am I rooting for the team!
Hmm…folks who once lived near Chernobyl and Fukajima might disagree. Also you should proofread your replies. “It also produces far less waste than solar or nuclear”. Windmills? Coal? Gas?
If “safe” means “nothing bad has ever happened,” then no energy source is safe, hydro dams have failed catastrophically, oil and gas explode, coal mining kills, and fossil fuels quietly harm people every day through air pollution.
The key metric is: how many people are harmed per unit of electricity produced.
When researchers compare energy sources by deaths per terawatt-hour (TWh) (including air pollution + accidents), nuclear sits at the very bottom.
“But what about Fukushima?”
WHO’s conclusion: No acute radiation injuries or deaths among workers or the public from radiation exposure due to the accident.
UNSCEAR’s conclusion: No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that can be directly attributed to radiation from the accident, and none are expected to be detectable in the future.
The largest health impacts were not radiological, they were social and medical consequences of displacement.
“But what about Chernobyl?”
Chernobyl is the single worst nuclear power accident in history. It also happened under conditions that are not representative of modern nuclear power, and even then, the health outcomes are often exaggerated in popular retellings.
UNSCEAR’s summary: 30 workers died within a few weeks, and over a hundred had radiation injuries. The NRC similarly reports 28 deaths from severe radiation effects in the first four months, plus two non radiological deaths soon after the explosion.
What about the “hundreds of thousands” people often assume died from Chernobyl?
UNSCEAR: Apart from the thyroid cancer increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident, and no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates that could be related to radiation exposure.
I guess then the 30 kilometer exclusion zone around Chernobyl isn’t necessary. And Fukushima is all cleaned up. None of the other energy sources have the catastrophic risk that nuclear has. Maybe it’s really low but happened two times in my lifetime.
As I commented before, I asked my FIL (worked for B&W/Areva/Framatome during a 50 year career) about that 20 years ago... he said France has been recycling their waste since the early days.
A simple search gave this info:
"France started reprocessing and recycling nuclear waste on an industrial scale with the opening of the first processing unit (UP2) at La Hague in 1966, building on earlier plutonium extraction efforts, and has consistently reused recovered uranium and plutonium in MOX fuels, making recycling a core part of its nuclear strategy from the beginning of its large-scale deployment."
A great read to share with my coffee this snowy morning in Michigan. The "modular" concept along with some of the other concepts looks great on paper but I am very surprised at the limited impact that the one will have here in Michigan. Would need sever of them to impact our grid here. So...these are primarily NOT the older huge plants, correct?
Each one restarted will lessen the stress on the grids. If the big techs want to pay for it to ease their conscious about "sucking up" all the energy of the grids for AI, good for them. They can afford it. As long as "rate payers" aren't stuck with the bill, go for it. IMO, those plants should NEVER have been shut down in the first place.
Always think about the US Nuclear Navy when the topic of SMRs come up ...the Nautilus submarine was first to launch in1954 and presently 80 or so vessels (mostly carriers and submarines) make up that fleet. Nautilus was powered by the S2W reactor developed by Westinghouse. With a pretty excellent record over 70+ years other big names like GE and Bechtel have also served to develop and innovate. Westinghouse is currently bringing to market their eVinci 5MW micro reactor. Makes me wonder why they wouldn't get at least an honorable mention now and then in SMR discussions.
Because cost and commercial viability is an absolute non-concern when the goal of the reactor is to prop up a corner of the nuclear triad
Good rundown at this point in the race - if that's what it is. Suggest you handicap this in 12 months to see who's left standing. The culling has started.
My money on the rookie ! Terrestrial Energy … the only question is what the do with the waste on the change out?
I'll take it. There's still a lot of energy in the "waste." France recycles their spent nuclear fuel.
My FIL (who worked in the industry for 50 years) told me about France's recycling, years ago. For some reason it seems to be a WELL KEPT secret... as that is ALWAYS the first question posed when talking about nuclear. Seems they've been doing so for around 50 years!
Just how far behind the pack are Rolls Royce in the UK - they are talking about switchon in the early 2030's - but are being treated like superstars!?
There are about 5 serious contenders outside the US. Rolls-Royce is a contender because their only real competitor in Europe is Nuward (EDF). The Europeans are in deep shit on energy policy, and everyone serious in energy knows as much, given the abject failures of wind and solar to be cheap and affordable at scale. Currently, the European grid is held together by the large plant nuclear of France and Sweden, and the abundant hydro of countries like Sweden and Norway.
There are lots of clever tricks being performed with LCOE analysis, but nobody friendly to wind/solar counts the cost of building energy storage, massive requirements to upgrade energy infrastructure, or the fact that the entire approach requires redundant gas plants, idling 70% of the time.
That being said, Rolls-Royce has an incredibly solid reputation, particularly with regard to precision engineering. I looked at them as a potential investment around the time that the UN, EU and IEA all began to change their tune on nuclear and gas power as a 'transition' technology. Gutted I didn't invest in them.
The other thing to consider is the ecosystem, something I kicked myself for not thinking of at the time. The emerging major players will be keen on brand association through outsourcing component manufacture to Rolls-Royce. They have exceptionally high brand equity. Rolls-Royce involvement in the supply chain probably lowers the cost of capital as well as making IPOs more attractive through de-risking. Even if Rolls-Royce don't emerge as a major player they will likely play a role in future developments as a component supplier, perhaps emulating Arm Holdings in this respect.
I asked AI to verify my viewpoint with a few additional prompts. Rolls-Royce involvement likely lowers the costs of capital by 1-3%.
Nice to see progress. Large scale projects are a hedge against small scale failure or delay. It will look silly if small scale delivers, and genius if it doesn't. Trump understands the value of energy security.
What ever happened to the first SMR's, nuclear reactors on submarines
Another great Sunday Morning morale booster!
Disappointed it has taken the Pentagon this long to follow up on Admr. Rickover's initiative with SMR's for the Nuclear Navy??? Then again maybe it is a very different president???
It's been attributed to Gen George S. Patton, but whoever, NRC needs to get the message "Lead, Follow, or get out of the way"
That’s a great point. BTW Have you read “Blind Man’s Bluff?” Oh, it’s good!
Heard about some of the escapades like taping underwater cables. No! I haven't read it. Yet. Just ordered it from the local library
Thanks for the tip!!!
George
Besides Oklo, are any of these public companies? Couldn't find Valar
I believe only NuScale (SMR) is publicly traded besides for OKLO. I think the rest are private, but Holtec is trying to go public this year.
#12 IMSR is public.
I think TerraPower wins but GE will get to scale the fastest as they don't require a domestic HALEU supply chain. The dark horse for sure is Valor simply by the speed they're going at. The issue with Valor, reactors aren't limited by engineering but commercialization which means getting pass the FOAK risk. Valor is one of the few that doesn't have a long term contract signed and with their modular design need a massive initial order to kickstart their economies of scale. But boy am I rooting for the team!
So what about nuclear waste? Whatever solution you buy into, nuclear-waste-disposal is part of what you are buying into.
Nuclear waste is a solved problem, see here - https://rationaloptimistsociety.substack.com/p/the-standard-oil-of-nuclear?utm_source=publication-search
Aalo
What are your thoughts on Nano Nuclear? I thought they were a contender?
Covered them in our original deep dive, they've fallen behind the pack. - https://rationaloptimistsociety.substack.com/p/whos-winning-the-smr-race?utm_source=publication-search
What will a SMR cost?
I was hoping one of these companies would be compared to the 2024 Oklahoma City Thunder. But no such luck!
However, the details were amazing!
Looking forward to all the new radioactive waste piling up from this nuclear renaissance. Good thing we solved that issue decades ago. Ha!
Nuclear waste is a solved problem, see here - https://rationaloptimistsociety.substack.com/p/the-standard-oil-of-nuclear?utm_source=publication-search
Solved in some theoretical future while in the present tons of nuclear waste remain.
Do you like being able to charge your phone, use a washing machine and keep food cold through refrigeration?
If the answer is yes, then you need energy.
The cleanest + safest energy source is nuclear. It also produces far less waste than solar or wind. See OWID stats - https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
There are no solutions, only tradeoffs
Hmm…folks who once lived near Chernobyl and Fukajima might disagree. Also you should proofread your replies. “It also produces far less waste than solar or nuclear”. Windmills? Coal? Gas?
The question is what we mean by “safe.”
If “safe” means “nothing bad has ever happened,” then no energy source is safe, hydro dams have failed catastrophically, oil and gas explode, coal mining kills, and fossil fuels quietly harm people every day through air pollution.
The key metric is: how many people are harmed per unit of electricity produced.
When researchers compare energy sources by deaths per terawatt-hour (TWh) (including air pollution + accidents), nuclear sits at the very bottom.
“But what about Fukushima?”
WHO’s conclusion: No acute radiation injuries or deaths among workers or the public from radiation exposure due to the accident.
UNSCEAR’s conclusion: No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that can be directly attributed to radiation from the accident, and none are expected to be detectable in the future.
The largest health impacts were not radiological, they were social and medical consequences of displacement.
“But what about Chernobyl?”
Chernobyl is the single worst nuclear power accident in history. It also happened under conditions that are not representative of modern nuclear power, and even then, the health outcomes are often exaggerated in popular retellings.
UNSCEAR’s summary: 30 workers died within a few weeks, and over a hundred had radiation injuries. The NRC similarly reports 28 deaths from severe radiation effects in the first four months, plus two non radiological deaths soon after the explosion.
What about the “hundreds of thousands” people often assume died from Chernobyl?
UNSCEAR: Apart from the thyroid cancer increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident, and no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates that could be related to radiation exposure.
I guess then the 30 kilometer exclusion zone around Chernobyl isn’t necessary. And Fukushima is all cleaned up. None of the other energy sources have the catastrophic risk that nuclear has. Maybe it’s really low but happened two times in my lifetime.
As I commented before, I asked my FIL (worked for B&W/Areva/Framatome during a 50 year career) about that 20 years ago... he said France has been recycling their waste since the early days.
A simple search gave this info:
"France started reprocessing and recycling nuclear waste on an industrial scale with the opening of the first processing unit (UP2) at La Hague in 1966, building on earlier plutonium extraction efforts, and has consistently reused recovered uranium and plutonium in MOX fuels, making recycling a core part of its nuclear strategy from the beginning of its large-scale deployment."
France stores waste at La Hague. They do a better job of recycling than the US but there is still waste.
A great read to share with my coffee this snowy morning in Michigan. The "modular" concept along with some of the other concepts looks great on paper but I am very surprised at the limited impact that the one will have here in Michigan. Would need sever of them to impact our grid here. So...these are primarily NOT the older huge plants, correct?
Each one restarted will lessen the stress on the grids. If the big techs want to pay for it to ease their conscious about "sucking up" all the energy of the grids for AI, good for them. They can afford it. As long as "rate payers" aren't stuck with the bill, go for it. IMO, those plants should NEVER have been shut down in the first place.