This special interest group is for professionals to connect and discuss all types of carbon-free power alternatives, including nuclear, renewable, tidal and more.

Author Profile

Bob Meinetz

Nuclear Power Policy Activist Independent

About me

I am a passionate advocate for the environment and nuclear energy. With the threat of climate change, I’ve embarked on a mission to help overcome the fears of nuclear energy. I’ve been active in...

Member since 2018
4,987 items added with 81,187 views

Top Members

WARNING: SIGN-IN

You need to be a member of Energy Central to access some features and content. Please sign-in or register to continue.

Shared Link

Nov 11, 2020 10:35 pm GMTNov 11, 2020 7:44 pm GMT
467 views

NuScale Announces Its Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Can Deliver An Additional 25% Power

An innovative small modular reactor being developed by US-based NuScale Power can generate an additional 25% more power per module for a total of 924 MW for the flagship 12-module power plant.

Source: www.nucnet.org

924 MW approaches the 1 GW standard for a "mainframe" pressurized-water reactor, and could provide a useful benchmark for power providers seeking to replace older power plants with with updated, flexible capacity.

report

Discussions

Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.

Sign in to Participate

Joe Deely on Nov 15, 2020

Good news...

In particular, I like the multiple smaller options - which I think could be a good fit in the 2030s for replacing NG and helping renewables to squeeze the last few hundred MMT out of the US power sector.

The company also announced options for smaller power plant solutions in four-module (about 308 MW) and six-module (about 462 MW) sizes.The smaller sizes will give NuScale customers more options in terms of size, power output, operational flexibility, and cost. They will also have a smaller footprint.

Nathan Wilson on Nov 26, 2020

I also like the smaller (308 & 462 MWatt) reactor sizes from NuScale. For two reasons:

- for islands like Hawaii, who don't have enough electrical demand for large reactors, and haven't been able to eliminate CO2 emissions or lower their electricity prices (which are the highest in the nation) with the things they've tried so far (inspite of being awash in geothermal, wind, and solar energy potential).

- for any market that does not already have an active nuclear construction industry. People can be surprisingly bad at things the first time they try it, so it makes sense to start small.

And of course NuScale's inovative passive safety and grid-friendliness prove that nuclear is a great fit for developed and developing countries alike.

Matt Chester on Nov 30, 2020

Those are great points on the use cases, Nathan-- the power industry can't be broadly painted with a single brush, and SMRs will make a difference in some places but not be as applicable in others. Finding the best solution for each specific application is so key.

Michael Keller on Nov 17, 2020

So much for the "small-is-better" rationale for the SMR. The mass production selling point has also been quietly dropped. Remains to be seen that the upsized plant can be licensed. Thus far net licensing costs are approaching $1/2 billion.

My real point is the water based reactors are mature, obsolete and expensive machines struggling to be competitive with much more modern cost effective energy technologies. As they say, if you find yourself struggling in a hole, stop digging deeper into the ground.

Mark Silverstone on Nov 17, 2020

"...small modular reactor being developed by US-based NuScale Power can generate an additional 25% more power per module..."

It´s cute that this item that is at least 8 years away from existence "can" generate more than was thought. This is "if" it is ever built and "if" it is safe, and "if" it is not wildly too expensive. Presumably, the light water design will incorporate all of the problematic issues of presently existing plants, including waste generation. I see the one town in Utah that opted out has now been joined on the sidelines by seven others. Will others follow? Any bets?

Bob Meinetz on Nov 25, 2020

Mark, if I'm not mistaken your background is in fossil fuel extraction, is it not? From many of your posts, you sound like an expert in the oil-field.

I have no idea if you're still in that line of work, but I do know - from industry insiders - that a cultural hatred / dismissal of nuclear energy is espoused at oil companies, and has been for decades. Both are in evidence here.

Understandable, that so much antagonism is directed at a cheap, abundant, carbon-free source of energy from those quarters. Why? Nuclear energy will soon be putting both them and their "renewable" friends out of business, and it can't happen soon enough.

Thank Bob for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

Start a Post » Learn more about posting on Energy Central »

EnergyBiz® Network

Generation Network

Energy Management Network

Intelligent Utility® Network

Grid Network

Energy & Sustainability
Network

Author Profile

About me