Small nuclear reactors could power the future — the challenge is building the first one in the U.S.

7 comments

1. Nuclear plants could become smaller, simpler and easier to build in the future, potentially revolutionizing a power source that is increasingly viewed as critical to the transition away from fossil fuels.

   New designs called small modular reactors, or SMR in shorthand, promise to speed deployment of new plants as demand for clean electricity is rising from artificial intelligence, manufacturing and electric vehicles.

   At the same time, utilities across the country are retiring coal plants as part of the energy transition, raising worries about a looming [electricity supply gap](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/28/utilities-face-looming-crunch-as-electricity-demand-from-ai-surges.html). Nuclear power is viewed as a potential solution because it is the most reliable power source available and does not emit carbon dioxide.

   Building large plants is [very costly and time-consuming](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/06/why-its-so-difficult-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-us.html). In Georgia, [Southern Co.](https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/SO/) built the [first new nuclear reactors in decades](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/31/vogtle-unit-3-nuclear-reactor-long-delayed-starts-delivering-power.html), but the project finished seven years behind schedule at a cost of more than $30 billion.

   Small modular reactors, with a power capacity of 300 megawatts or less, are about a third the size of the average reactors in the current U.S. fleet. The goal is to build them in a process similar to an assembly line, with plants rolling out of factories in just a handful of pieces that are then put together at the site.

   “They’re a smaller bite from a capital perspective,” Doug True, chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute, told CNBC. “They’re a perfect fit for things like replacing a retired coal plant, because the size of coal plants typically is more than that of the small modular reactor design space.”

   The challenge is getting the first small modular reactor built in the U.S.

   More: [https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/07/how-small-modular-reactors-could-expand-nuclear-power-in-the-us.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/07/how-small-modular-reactors-could-expand-nuclear-power-in-the-us.html)

2. Geothermal would be a true green energy source. Nuclear is an unnecessary risk.

3. “The challenge is getting the first small modular reactor built in the U.S.”

   A huge challenge, since SMR are unlikely to be cheaper or more reliable than full size nuclear reactors. This is why nobody has even completed a working prototype!!

   Meanwhile, wind turbines, solar panels and battery storage gets cheaper year on year. If in several years time someone does actually build an SMR, then it will be too late, renewables will have cornered the market.

4. nuclear is safe if done correctly and we will need to continue its development not just for daily energy purposes. wind and solar have their environmental costs too.

5. The U.S. has built SMRs for nearly 70 years, most of which have gone into submarines and satellites. However, we’ve never built one cheap enough to compete with rock-bottom power costs from sources like wind and solar. Attempts to do so, like NuScale, have utterly failed.

   We need more nuclear, but why don’t we follow the more successful examples all around the world, keeping costs down by standardizing plants–and by reforming utility laws to remove the incentives for utilities to jack up cost overruns in order to increase the size of their allowable return rate on projects?

6. Cheaper to build, more inefficient to run and service per kwh produced. Ideal size, according to Rolls Royce, works out at about 400 mw = standard size.

   SMR is an old idea which has been shilled as something new and special for the last few years.

7. Why?? Definitely not in my backyard!! There are plenty of safer energy sources. Even after a catastrophe, we could piggy back on safe energy. But, nuclear?? Have to wonder whom and why is choosing this to the detriment of the population. I’m guessing laundering money. It’s perfect,