1Mon
Wishful thinking and reality ;-). SMRs would be operational from 2040 at the earliest, with extremely high development costs until then and much higher ongoing operating costs than existing nuclear power plants.
Here is a brief summary:
The Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) presented a comprehensive report on March 10, 2021,[47] which looks at 136 different historical and current reactors and SMR concepts, 31 of which are particularly detailed. The report prepared by the Öko-Institut on behalf of the BASE provides an assessment of possible areas of application, the final storage issue, safety issues and the risk of proliferation[48][49].
The findings of the report include the following:
In order to generate the same electrical power worldwide as with conventional nuclear power plants, the construction of many thousands to ten thousand SMR plants would be necessary.
Compared to nuclear power plants with a large output, individual SMRs could potentially achieve safety advantages, as they have a lower radioactive inventory per reactor. However, the high number of reactors required for the same production volume of electrical power increases the overall risk many times over.
Contrary to what is sometimes stated by manufacturers, it must be assumed that in the event of a serious accident, the radioactive contamination would extend well beyond the plant site.
Due to the low electrical output, the construction costs for SMRs are relatively higher than for large nuclear power plants. A production cost calculation, taking into account economies of scale, mass and learning effects from the nuclear industry, suggests that an average of 3,000 SMRs would have to be produced before it would be worthwhile entering into SMR production.
A return to nuclear energy would in turn entail long operating, safety and accident risks. Extensive interim storage and fuel transportation would still be necessary. A final storage facility would also still be required in any case.
The use of existing uranium reserves through partitioning and transmutation (P&T) concepts is only applicable for spent fuel rods. However, 40 percent of these have already been reprocessed in Germany. The resulting vitrified waste is not accessible for P&T processes.
Although the quantity of certain transuranic elements such as plutonium could be reduced, the quantity of waste for other long-lived radioactive fission products would increase, in some cases by up to 75 percent (caesium-135) compared to the quantity to be stored without P&T.
Finally, there would still be a risk that the plutonium that would have to be separated in the P&T process would be more easily accessible for weapons production.
The critical overall assessment states that none of the technologies under discussion are currently or foreseeably available on the market. At the same time, they are advertised with promises similar to those made for reactors in the 1950s and 1960s[50].
University of Pennsylvania (2022)
Edit
According to a study published in PNAS, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) generate up to 2 to 30 times more radioactive waste per unit of energy produced than conventional nuclear reactors. In addition, the waste from SMRs is considerably more radioactive, which makes long-term storage and disposal even more difficult. These findings raise questions about the environmental compatibility and safety of SMRs, particularly in comparison with existing large reactors, which already pose challenges in terms of waste management.
Look up in the sky, the biggest power plant of all time is just appearing ;-).
Here is a brief summary:
The Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) presented a comprehensive report on March 10, 2021,[47] which looks at 136 different historical and current reactors and SMR concepts, 31 of which are particularly detailed. The report prepared by the Öko-Institut on behalf of the BASE provides an assessment of possible areas of application, the final storage issue, safety issues and the risk of proliferation[48][49].
The findings of the report include the following:
In order to generate the same electrical power worldwide as with conventional nuclear power plants, the construction of many thousands to ten thousand SMR plants would be necessary.
Compared to nuclear power plants with a large output, individual SMRs could potentially achieve safety advantages, as they have a lower radioactive inventory per reactor. However, the high number of reactors required for the same production volume of electrical power increases the overall risk many times over.
Contrary to what is sometimes stated by manufacturers, it must be assumed that in the event of a serious accident, the radioactive contamination would extend well beyond the plant site.
Due to the low electrical output, the construction costs for SMRs are relatively higher than for large nuclear power plants. A production cost calculation, taking into account economies of scale, mass and learning effects from the nuclear industry, suggests that an average of 3,000 SMRs would have to be produced before it would be worthwhile entering into SMR production.
A return to nuclear energy would in turn entail long operating, safety and accident risks. Extensive interim storage and fuel transportation would still be necessary. A final storage facility would also still be required in any case.
The use of existing uranium reserves through partitioning and transmutation (P&T) concepts is only applicable for spent fuel rods. However, 40 percent of these have already been reprocessed in Germany. The resulting vitrified waste is not accessible for P&T processes.
Although the quantity of certain transuranic elements such as plutonium could be reduced, the quantity of waste for other long-lived radioactive fission products would increase, in some cases by up to 75 percent (caesium-135) compared to the quantity to be stored without P&T.
Finally, there would still be a risk that the plutonium that would have to be separated in the P&T process would be more easily accessible for weapons production.
The critical overall assessment states that none of the technologies under discussion are currently or foreseeably available on the market. At the same time, they are advertised with promises similar to those made for reactors in the 1950s and 1960s[50].
University of Pennsylvania (2022)
Edit
According to a study published in PNAS, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) generate up to 2 to 30 times more radioactive waste per unit of energy produced than conventional nuclear reactors. In addition, the waste from SMRs is considerably more radioactive, which makes long-term storage and disposal even more difficult. These findings raise questions about the environmental compatibility and safety of SMRs, particularly in comparison with existing large reactors, which already pose challenges in terms of waste management.
Look up in the sky, the biggest power plant of all time is just appearing ;-).
•
55
•
@Eurosammler but this refers to Germany, which is slowly becoming a developing country in terms of technical progress, where nuclear energy has no chance anyway for ideological reasons. In other countries, there are vast quantities of spent fuel rods that have not yet been reprocessed.
The little bit of sun we have will never be enough to supply data centers with electricity in the age of AI.
I can't say whether it will be SMRs or other mini power plants. But it won't be solar.
The little bit of sun we have will never be enough to supply data centers with electricity in the age of AI.
I can't say whether it will be SMRs or other mini power plants. But it won't be solar.
••
1Mon
@Multibagger The combination of wind power, solar energy and, above all, the further development of storage modules in conjunction with power lines will do the trick. In two years at the latest, e-cars, for example, will have ranges of 1,000 km with short charging times, even e-trucks are on the advance, see Mercedes eActros 600, many haulage companies are already switching to e and completely replacing their fleet (consumption equivalent to approx. 10 l diesel/100km, a "normal" diesel consumes approx. 40 l).
E-development is making quantum leaps in Germany right now, we should talk and compare again in two years' time.
I see huge investment potential here, we should not repeat several mistakes of the past. Take Altmaier's solar energy in the 90s (we were the world market leader), or Nokia: iPhone/smartphone is a toy (just over 10 years ago!), or computers: "nobody needs a computer".
If the money that is literally being burnt on nuclear energy (I'll leave out the environmental hazards and storage for now) is invested in the further development of already highly efficient renewable energies and storage, we will be giant steps ahead in no time. And not just in 20 years' time, when the first SMR might go into operation.
E-development is making quantum leaps in Germany right now, we should talk and compare again in two years' time.
I see huge investment potential here, we should not repeat several mistakes of the past. Take Altmaier's solar energy in the 90s (we were the world market leader), or Nokia: iPhone/smartphone is a toy (just over 10 years ago!), or computers: "nobody needs a computer".
If the money that is literally being burnt on nuclear energy (I'll leave out the environmental hazards and storage for now) is invested in the further development of already highly efficient renewable energies and storage, we will be giant steps ahead in no time. And not just in 20 years' time, when the first SMR might go into operation.
•
11
•1Mon
Incidentally, it is not ideological reasons that speak against nuclear power (in whatever form), they are scientifically proven facts!
Nuclear power has helped us to move away from coal (in the first place) and also to reduce oil and gas consumption.
For a transitional period, highly efficient gas-fired power plants can now close and supplement the last gaps in the energy supply for industrial needs. We no longer need nuclear power in Germany, not even from abroad.
Nuclear power has helped us to move away from coal (in the first place) and also to reduce oil and gas consumption.
For a transitional period, highly efficient gas-fired power plants can now close and supplement the last gaps in the energy supply for industrial needs. We no longer need nuclear power in Germany, not even from abroad.
•
11
•@Eurosammler But Germany is not the world. And almost all major industrialized nations rely on nuclear energy. Germany is standing in its own way with its bureaucracy. Here, anyone can delay a construction project with lawsuits. Power lines have to be laid underground, which is very expensive and time-consuming, and if a bird species nests in the area, the breeding season has to be waited for. Battery charging of 1000 im is already available, as well as fast charging in 5-10 minutes. However, $1211, $3750 and $1810 are also far ahead in this respect. Many people always complain about China, but they don't put a spoke in the wheel of innovation. (I'll leave out the negative consequences for now)
That's why they will always be ahead of Europe. If Europe were to join forces as one, they could overtake everyone else. But that won't happen.
That's why they will always be ahead of Europe. If Europe were to join forces as one, they could overtake everyone else. But that won't happen.
•
11
•1Mon
Incidentally, it was not the Greens who abolished nuclear power in Germany. It was the coalition of CDU and FDP that took this decision in 2011. In charge at the time: a state premier from Bavaria ;-).
•
11
•@Eurosammler I know that, it was a knee-jerk reaction after Fukushima that is costing us billions today.
••
1Mon
From the perspective of a small shareholder and investor: I see huge monetary potential in the further development of renewable energies and that with a very short-term investment horizon.
•
11
•@Eurosammler That may be the case for Germany, but the largest economies such as the USA are currently turning off the tap on renewables. And that won't change any time soon.
••
1Mon
@Multibagger However, as the third largest industrialized nation, Germany contributes significantly to the increase in CO2.
In absolute terms, 2% is enormous
- Germany emits around 650-750 million tons of CO₂ per year.
- That's more than 150 of the world's poorest countries combined.
- Even if the percentage share seems small, the absolute effect on the climate is relevant.
Nuclear power plants in other European countries are planned or under construction, but they are not being built any further (also due to errors), but primarily not implemented because the costs have skyrocketed.
In Germany, too, no (!) operator is prepared to build new nuclear power plants or reactivate existing ones (which would be even more difficult).
You are right that the bureaucracy in Germany is paralyzing, including the length of procedures, and there is an urgent need for action.
In absolute terms, 2% is enormous
- Germany emits around 650-750 million tons of CO₂ per year.
- That's more than 150 of the world's poorest countries combined.
- Even if the percentage share seems small, the absolute effect on the climate is relevant.
Nuclear power plants in other European countries are planned or under construction, but they are not being built any further (also due to errors), but primarily not implemented because the costs have skyrocketed.
In Germany, too, no (!) operator is prepared to build new nuclear power plants or reactivate existing ones (which would be even more difficult).
You are right that the bureaucracy in Germany is paralyzing, including the length of procedures, and there is an urgent need for action.
•
11
•1Mon
@Multibagger Have you considered the billions for storage and decommissioning (limited lifetimes)?
How high were the costs due to Fukushima?
How high were the costs due to Fukushima?
••