how could the company BWX Technologies be left out of your discussion. They have the most experience in delivering equivalent SMRs to the U.S. Navy for submarine and aircraft carrier propulsion. They have contracts to deliver SMR components in several foreign countries. They have the most experience and knowledge of any of the firms you list.
All hype, as you stated. BWXT is the only real business that operates in this space. They will continue to lead and expand because they are the ONLY business with any true products and cash flows.
Submarine power plants are really just miniaturized PWRs, not SMRs. They preceded commercial plants.
In manufacturing (my career intersects nuclear and fabrication) it is axiomatic that making multiple miniature copies of a thing in a quantity equivalent to one larger thing will cost more. The need for regulation and security does not shrink along with the equipment.
Currently the engineering and taxpayer cash distribution worlds are in a deep fever dream about energy, too blinded by vast amount$ and the self-delusional hype to comprehend that SMRs are just a more expensive way to build less power than we will need. But handing out cash gives us the impression politicians are doing something about the climate crisis. COPnn meetings give them the pseudoscientific cover they need to pursue Oil & Gas endorsed 'solutions' like carbon capture (a fraud) and direct air capture (total looney tunes).
COP (Carry On Pumping) is just an fossil industry confab where industry lobbyists outnumber honest delegates 4 to 1.
Quite the pro-nuke panacea here. I've seen this rodeo before. Let's consider the true cradle to grave costs with SMR generation. Even after 50 years of mandates, DoE has yet to resolve high level waste storage, and NIMBY has only worsened since their Yucca Mountain folly. While some spent fuel can be processed (not profitably), reprocessing presents new risks. Other issues including neutron embrittlement, waste heat, decommissioning, and unique risks for salt/sodium cooled technologies still exist. The writers glibly solve occupational radiation exposure risk by suggesting we just don't worry about it (abolishing ALARA). With all the AI exuberance igniting the rush, I see a lot of cans getting kicked down the road for future gens to deal with. The American Way, I suppose.
I still don't understand why all the development fuss??? Didn't the Navy under Adm. Rickover invent, manufacture and deploy SMR's on Navy Subs & AC Carriers??? So why don't we just "commercialize" them???
You should research the good Admiral a little more deeply. Yes he propelled the navy nuclear programme, but he did not 'invent' very much - he created much of his own myth.
He made major critical decisions practically alone, which led to future problems such as the Inconel steam generator tube degradation problem that caught up with the commercial fleet in the 1980s and 1990s. The Navy (i.e. Rickover) and INCO stubbornly and arrogantly ignored counter-evidence about stress cracking from 1959 to 1972. Just google 'Coriou + PWSCC'.
Thanks! This was a great rundown. Please keep us posted on a regular basis of the progress these developers are making. I assume that all of these developers are privately owned, am I right?
From a regulatory point of view, are there specific obstacles that are creating delays to the rapid development and deployment of these systems? This information may be used to allow us as a community to put pressure on our congressional representatives to speed up the elimination of these roadblocks.
I so wish my FIL was still alive to see what is happening in the industry. I often picked his brain on the subject.
He started at B&W after graduating from Purdue. He worked on the design-build of the German plants and a few others all over Europe and the US. His favorite project was the NS SAVANNAH (birthed in Baltimore Harbor).
He retired after almost 50 years in the industry and being part of B&W, AREVA and FRAMATOME. I think he'd be excited to see all of this.
If friendly aliens landed on Earth in 2025, they’d ... very quickly judge the inhabitants to be of inferior intellect and of a self-destructive nature, then get right back into their ship and fly away, never to return.
Every claim you make is defensible except one, which discredits the rest by association: the "banana dose" claim. It originated in one of the US's nuclear labs when a technician made a simple mistake:
Instead of calculating the near-zero dose to a human of ingesting a banana's total potassium in terrestrial equilibrium, he calculated (or read off a chart) the dose from ingesting the radioactive fraction of that potassium (K-60) as pure radioactive K-60. That dose is well known but it is irrelevant to the question at hand: how much dose does a person get from eating a banana.
As a long-time researcher who has never lost a bet against the next "nuclear Renaissance", I find it tempting to lean back and watch while nuclear advocates embarrass themselves with simple demonstrations of innumeracy. But (a) my fondness for truth and honest debate and (b) my fondness for the Rational Optimist and Matt Ridley both prompt me to speak up.
Please stop distributing this falsehood. It is even possible to argue against ALARA and the linear no-threshold hypothesis without invoking math errors.
Nice overview. It is exciting to see the American nuclear industry possibly turn around. On a more sobering note, I want to point out that while SMRs are a promising technology, it is going to take alot more than them to radically reduce the cost of nuclear energy. The reactor itself is only about 14% of the cost of a new power plant, so even a huge decline in reactor costs will not move the cost needle very much.
Your comments on NEPA holding things back may not be as accurate as it used to be. The repeal of the Chevron Doctrine, and a recent decision by the Supreme Court limiting the extent of NEPA review may speed things up. The NEPA decision, for example, eliminated the requirement to consider "cumulative impact." I have some familiarity with this stuff because I'm active in my community on issues of airport growth impact on surrounding communities.
-building an operating reactor at INL is still just a demonstration. That may feed the hype machine but is a long way from making a material difference to electricity production for the US grid.
-to operate commercially on land in the US, all the tiny reactors will need large, costly concrete structures for both shielding and to protect against possible terror attacks. They will bulk up quickly (ask NuScale). The NRC is getting more responsive but Congress (and the country) still want safe reactors.
-both sodium and molten salt cooled reactors should be able to output steam at near 500C or more.
-molten salts definitely expand when heated.
Personally, I think that 15 years from now, Large Modular Reactors will represent the majority of capacity added to the US grid.
Cradle to grave commenters crack me up! None present an apples to apples comparison of cradle to grave assessment of electrification energy sources for our society. To be legitimate, you need to show c2g for wind, coal, solar, oil, natural gas and nuclear. Be evidence based, not bias based.
Nuclear constructors have a history of fiscal dishonesty ('too cheap to meter') and cost overruns. The long-term historical record shows that build costs average 220% of budget. I doubt that one commercial plant has been built on schedule.
The companies that win the SMR race won’t be the ones with the flashiest designs. They’ll be the ones that lock down fuel supply, predictable build schedules and financing structures that scale.
Engineering is only half the game. Execution and supply chains decide who actually delivers firm power at cost.
Great article. I am doing work in the nuclear sector and the article is spot on.
how could the company BWX Technologies be left out of your discussion. They have the most experience in delivering equivalent SMRs to the U.S. Navy for submarine and aircraft carrier propulsion. They have contracts to deliver SMR components in several foreign countries. They have the most experience and knowledge of any of the firms you list.
All hype, as you stated. BWXT is the only real business that operates in this space. They will continue to lead and expand because they are the ONLY business with any true products and cash flows.
Submarine power plants are really just miniaturized PWRs, not SMRs. They preceded commercial plants.
In manufacturing (my career intersects nuclear and fabrication) it is axiomatic that making multiple miniature copies of a thing in a quantity equivalent to one larger thing will cost more. The need for regulation and security does not shrink along with the equipment.
Currently the engineering and taxpayer cash distribution worlds are in a deep fever dream about energy, too blinded by vast amount$ and the self-delusional hype to comprehend that SMRs are just a more expensive way to build less power than we will need. But handing out cash gives us the impression politicians are doing something about the climate crisis. COPnn meetings give them the pseudoscientific cover they need to pursue Oil & Gas endorsed 'solutions' like carbon capture (a fraud) and direct air capture (total looney tunes).
COP (Carry On Pumping) is just an fossil industry confab where industry lobbyists outnumber honest delegates 4 to 1.
Fair critique. If Rolls gets a mention BWXT needs one.
Using Starhopper as an analogy may not be the best from a PR perspective.
"They launched it, it blew up, they learned, they improved."
Might want to work on that "blew up" aspect a little :-)
"blew up at taxpayer expense"
fixed!
😂😂😂
Quite the pro-nuke panacea here. I've seen this rodeo before. Let's consider the true cradle to grave costs with SMR generation. Even after 50 years of mandates, DoE has yet to resolve high level waste storage, and NIMBY has only worsened since their Yucca Mountain folly. While some spent fuel can be processed (not profitably), reprocessing presents new risks. Other issues including neutron embrittlement, waste heat, decommissioning, and unique risks for salt/sodium cooled technologies still exist. The writers glibly solve occupational radiation exposure risk by suggesting we just don't worry about it (abolishing ALARA). With all the AI exuberance igniting the rush, I see a lot of cans getting kicked down the road for future gens to deal with. The American Way, I suppose.
Great article tells the story very well.
I still don't understand why all the development fuss??? Didn't the Navy under Adm. Rickover invent, manufacture and deploy SMR's on Navy Subs & AC Carriers??? So why don't we just "commercialize" them???
You should research the good Admiral a little more deeply. Yes he propelled the navy nuclear programme, but he did not 'invent' very much - he created much of his own myth.
He made major critical decisions practically alone, which led to future problems such as the Inconel steam generator tube degradation problem that caught up with the commercial fleet in the 1980s and 1990s. The Navy (i.e. Rickover) and INCO stubbornly and arrogantly ignored counter-evidence about stress cracking from 1959 to 1972. Just google 'Coriou + PWSCC'.
Thanks! This was a great rundown. Please keep us posted on a regular basis of the progress these developers are making. I assume that all of these developers are privately owned, am I right?
From a regulatory point of view, are there specific obstacles that are creating delays to the rapid development and deployment of these systems? This information may be used to allow us as a community to put pressure on our congressional representatives to speed up the elimination of these roadblocks.
I also liked Fred,s comments.
I so wish my FIL was still alive to see what is happening in the industry. I often picked his brain on the subject.
He started at B&W after graduating from Purdue. He worked on the design-build of the German plants and a few others all over Europe and the US. His favorite project was the NS SAVANNAH (birthed in Baltimore Harbor).
He retired after almost 50 years in the industry and being part of B&W, AREVA and FRAMATOME. I think he'd be excited to see all of this.
If friendly aliens landed on Earth in 2025, they’d ... very quickly judge the inhabitants to be of inferior intellect and of a self-destructive nature, then get right back into their ship and fly away, never to return.
Rational Optimism: Where taxpayer-funded delusional engineering meets Steven Pinker.
There are a lot of slick statements in this piece that, aided by some well-placed clichés, will escape less informed and less critical folks.
Every claim you make is defensible except one, which discredits the rest by association: the "banana dose" claim. It originated in one of the US's nuclear labs when a technician made a simple mistake:
Instead of calculating the near-zero dose to a human of ingesting a banana's total potassium in terrestrial equilibrium, he calculated (or read off a chart) the dose from ingesting the radioactive fraction of that potassium (K-60) as pure radioactive K-60. That dose is well known but it is irrelevant to the question at hand: how much dose does a person get from eating a banana.
As a long-time researcher who has never lost a bet against the next "nuclear Renaissance", I find it tempting to lean back and watch while nuclear advocates embarrass themselves with simple demonstrations of innumeracy. But (a) my fondness for truth and honest debate and (b) my fondness for the Rational Optimist and Matt Ridley both prompt me to speak up.
Please stop distributing this falsehood. It is even possible to argue against ALARA and the linear no-threshold hypothesis without invoking math errors.
Well said.
Incredibly well researched and RATIONAL, and understandable to the non industry reader.
Nice overview. It is exciting to see the American nuclear industry possibly turn around. On a more sobering note, I want to point out that while SMRs are a promising technology, it is going to take alot more than them to radically reduce the cost of nuclear energy. The reactor itself is only about 14% of the cost of a new power plant, so even a huge decline in reactor costs will not move the cost needle very much.
Your comments on NEPA holding things back may not be as accurate as it used to be. The repeal of the Chevron Doctrine, and a recent decision by the Supreme Court limiting the extent of NEPA review may speed things up. The NEPA decision, for example, eliminated the requirement to consider "cumulative impact." I have some familiarity with this stuff because I'm active in my community on issues of airport growth impact on surrounding communities.
Just a couple comments/facts:
-building an operating reactor at INL is still just a demonstration. That may feed the hype machine but is a long way from making a material difference to electricity production for the US grid.
-to operate commercially on land in the US, all the tiny reactors will need large, costly concrete structures for both shielding and to protect against possible terror attacks. They will bulk up quickly (ask NuScale). The NRC is getting more responsive but Congress (and the country) still want safe reactors.
-both sodium and molten salt cooled reactors should be able to output steam at near 500C or more.
-molten salts definitely expand when heated.
Personally, I think that 15 years from now, Large Modular Reactors will represent the majority of capacity added to the US grid.
Cradle to grave commenters crack me up! None present an apples to apples comparison of cradle to grave assessment of electrification energy sources for our society. To be legitimate, you need to show c2g for wind, coal, solar, oil, natural gas and nuclear. Be evidence based, not bias based.
Nuclear constructors have a history of fiscal dishonesty ('too cheap to meter') and cost overruns. The long-term historical record shows that build costs average 220% of budget. I doubt that one commercial plant has been built on schedule.
Great read!!
The companies that win the SMR race won’t be the ones with the flashiest designs. They’ll be the ones that lock down fuel supply, predictable build schedules and financing structures that scale.
Engineering is only half the game. Execution and supply chains decide who actually delivers firm power at cost.