If you have nuclear, why do you need solar and wind and any of the other renewable trash? (You don’t)
This might sound like a lot of money, but to make 500MW of reliable power with solar and batteries would require 40 square miles of solar collectors and cost over $8 billion
If you apply to connect a renewable project in California today, it won’t come online until 2034 at the earliest.
Those Microsoft kids sure know how to get what they want.
Love the SMRs behind the meter! It has always been the best data center solution. No new transmission lines, no emissions no high pressure gas lines.
Thank you Robert for your great work and for bringing the issues that you do so eloquently to us outside the industry. Keep it up - I am happy RB subscriber!
PS: THE PH PODCAST WAS FANTASTIC AND I HOPE IT COMES BACK SOMEDAY.
You asked for additional SMR companies. It looks like your list isn't limited to the US, so here are a few international players:
Blykalla (formerly known as LeadCold) (Sweden)
Copenhagen Atomics (DK)
Molten Chloride Fast Reactor (MCFR) partnership consisting of TerraPower, Southern Company, CORE POWER (US & UK)
SMART (100 MWE light water reactor) being developed by Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KA-CARE). This design was just issued a standard design approval by South Korea's Nuclear Safety and Security Commission.
Seaborg Technologies (DK)
We've also met with several stealth mode companies. (We meaning Nucleation Capital.)
Great job highlighting the salient points. As a full time nuclear analyst as my profession the issue that I witness being the most glaring point outside of the Vogtle issues and bad PR for decades is the shortage of skilled blue and white collar workers. Or why is referred to as workforce development. The shortage is at least 350,000 workers up to 2 million if you include construction workers to build the plants in the U.S. Thank you for highlighting nuclear power. You are one of the few who understand like Vaclav Smil there is no such thing as an energy transition, net-zero or decarbonization without heavy reliance on nuclear power. Thanks for what you do.
The note in the graphic says that adding 10 new 1,000MW reactors will add only 1% to total US capacity, but fails to note that it would add approximately 5% to total generation and all of the generation would be delivered when needed, not when the sun shines or the wind blows. Only 54 nuclear power plants (94 reactors) in the US currently produce 21% of the electricity. More than 2,500 utility scale solar sites produce only 3.4% of our electricity and 1,500 wind projects with over 71,000 turbines produce only 10% of our electricity. There are hundreds of decommissioned coal power plant sites that could easily host new gigawatt scale nuclear reactors. They are all brownfield industrial sites with access to cooling water and existing grid connections. Most are located in or near major load centers. The main issue with cost and schedule overruns is the NRC and its zero risk tolerance approach developed in the 1970's. This needs to be updated to the current state of technology.
I’d add that building and maintaining new transmission has its own set of costs. Plus there are friends of the USG who want to protect federal acres a la 30 x 30, and that is not coordinated with a plan for transmission buildout. Plans to interconnect also have security issues. Plus existing infrastructure needs upgrades. Seems like our energy policy is a bit of a cluster.
That's a good point re the enormous productivity of nuclear plants, particularly when compared to wind and solar. I thought about adding that to the article, but the piece was already approaching 2,000 words. Your comment will prod me to make a new graphic that compares capacity to production for each source. Thanks.
What’s interesting is that the big tech companies have never had significant cap-ex needs. They’ve relied on existing networks (cable, phone, etc.). They’re very smart folks but this is definitely not in their wheelhouse. So they could easily botch these big investments..although probably less than the government will.
If nuclear received the same subsidies as alt-energy, reactors would be springing up like dandelions. Here in Vermont much of the existing net metered solar is getting $200/Mwh for 20 years. Latest rate is $170. VT has a re-useable nuclear site at now demolished VT Yankee. Transmission infrastructure still intact. Instead the state passed a law requiring all generation to be renewable by 2030.
That 24/7/365 geothermal is unmentioned in this mix is abjectly absurd. Give me $10 billion to sprinkle in Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and , sigh, even Colorado and I’ll give you lights on, motors running and data flowing with a minuscule moccasin print, no plumes, no noise, and no risk.
Yes. Currently (sorry for the pun), fat transmission lines, many tied to coal gen, criss-cross the hot rock regions of geothermal potential in the US WNW.
Some hopeful news! Thoughts…
If you have nuclear, why do you need solar and wind and any of the other renewable trash? (You don’t)
This might sound like a lot of money, but to make 500MW of reliable power with solar and batteries would require 40 square miles of solar collectors and cost over $8 billion
If you apply to connect a renewable project in California today, it won’t come online until 2034 at the earliest.
Those Microsoft kids sure know how to get what they want.
Love the SMRs behind the meter! It has always been the best data center solution. No new transmission lines, no emissions no high pressure gas lines.
Thanks Robert. Nice work. I’ll pony up for paid.
Thank you Robert for your great work and for bringing the issues that you do so eloquently to us outside the industry. Keep it up - I am happy RB subscriber!
PS: THE PH PODCAST WAS FANTASTIC AND I HOPE IT COMES BACK SOMEDAY.
All the best
Sander
Robert:
You asked for additional SMR companies. It looks like your list isn't limited to the US, so here are a few international players:
Blykalla (formerly known as LeadCold) (Sweden)
Copenhagen Atomics (DK)
Molten Chloride Fast Reactor (MCFR) partnership consisting of TerraPower, Southern Company, CORE POWER (US & UK)
SMART (100 MWE light water reactor) being developed by Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KA-CARE). This design was just issued a standard design approval by South Korea's Nuclear Safety and Security Commission.
Seaborg Technologies (DK)
We've also met with several stealth mode companies. (We meaning Nucleation Capital.)
Great article, BTW.
Excellent u have been a cheerleader for nuclear for so long as u have been on my radar screen, glad to see some results, better late than never.
Add Copenhagen Atomics to the list:
https://www.copenhagenatomics.com/
Excellent work, Robert. Labor and materials are an additional factor, largely brought on by the U.S. abandoning new builds in the 1980’s.
We are hopeful.
Working on a piece that has another angle to all this, a reckoning it should cause.
Great job highlighting the salient points. As a full time nuclear analyst as my profession the issue that I witness being the most glaring point outside of the Vogtle issues and bad PR for decades is the shortage of skilled blue and white collar workers. Or why is referred to as workforce development. The shortage is at least 350,000 workers up to 2 million if you include construction workers to build the plants in the U.S. Thank you for highlighting nuclear power. You are one of the few who understand like Vaclav Smil there is no such thing as an energy transition, net-zero or decarbonization without heavy reliance on nuclear power. Thanks for what you do.
I am missing Copenhagen Atomics and Seaborg on your list. (This will probably be my last posting, as I do not plan to upgrade. Sorry to see you go..)
thank you Robert
fully agree, we cannot keep the lights on with additional coal and gas, globally making up for 60% of electricity generation.
that is why i wrote my recent article on coal and gas only.
have a look here
https://unpopular-truth.com/2024/09/14/natural-gas-or-coal/
The note in the graphic says that adding 10 new 1,000MW reactors will add only 1% to total US capacity, but fails to note that it would add approximately 5% to total generation and all of the generation would be delivered when needed, not when the sun shines or the wind blows. Only 54 nuclear power plants (94 reactors) in the US currently produce 21% of the electricity. More than 2,500 utility scale solar sites produce only 3.4% of our electricity and 1,500 wind projects with over 71,000 turbines produce only 10% of our electricity. There are hundreds of decommissioned coal power plant sites that could easily host new gigawatt scale nuclear reactors. They are all brownfield industrial sites with access to cooling water and existing grid connections. Most are located in or near major load centers. The main issue with cost and schedule overruns is the NRC and its zero risk tolerance approach developed in the 1970's. This needs to be updated to the current state of technology.
I’d add that building and maintaining new transmission has its own set of costs. Plus there are friends of the USG who want to protect federal acres a la 30 x 30, and that is not coordinated with a plan for transmission buildout. Plans to interconnect also have security issues. Plus existing infrastructure needs upgrades. Seems like our energy policy is a bit of a cluster.
That's a good point re the enormous productivity of nuclear plants, particularly when compared to wind and solar. I thought about adding that to the article, but the piece was already approaching 2,000 words. Your comment will prod me to make a new graphic that compares capacity to production for each source. Thanks.
Dear Robert,
Rolls Royce is nog om your SMR list ?
Willem de Kleynen The Netherlands
I have Rolls-Royce on the list. It's the fifth one.
Robert, You are great !
There is a smr developer in the Netherlands - Amsterdam
" Thorizon " !!! The Frence are helping recently.
Greets ! Willem de Kleynen (Netherlands)
Nano Nuclear
What’s interesting is that the big tech companies have never had significant cap-ex needs. They’ve relied on existing networks (cable, phone, etc.). They’re very smart folks but this is definitely not in their wheelhouse. So they could easily botch these big investments..although probably less than the government will.
If nuclear received the same subsidies as alt-energy, reactors would be springing up like dandelions. Here in Vermont much of the existing net metered solar is getting $200/Mwh for 20 years. Latest rate is $170. VT has a re-useable nuclear site at now demolished VT Yankee. Transmission infrastructure still intact. Instead the state passed a law requiring all generation to be renewable by 2030.
That 24/7/365 geothermal is unmentioned in this mix is abjectly absurd. Give me $10 billion to sprinkle in Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and , sigh, even Colorado and I’ll give you lights on, motors running and data flowing with a minuscule moccasin print, no plumes, no noise, and no risk.
There are some advances in geothermal going on, thanks to fracking tech.. See Eavor.
https://www.eavor.com/
You also need to develop and maintain new transmission. I like geothermal too, but..
Yes. Currently (sorry for the pun), fat transmission lines, many tied to coal gen, criss-cross the hot rock regions of geothermal potential in the US WNW.