Future Energy Pathways

[kato]

Would the no canal access really matter for a nuclear powered vessel assuming it was reliable? The more pressing issue is the hull lifetime for a cargo vessel is likely less than the reactor lifetime.

It matters for cost effectiveness. See the global spike in freight rates whenever ships can't use the Suez canal for whatever reason.

Presumably economies of scale could drive the production costs down. Were the operating costs similarly high, outside of paperwork issues?

I've seen costs of 10 million DM per year quoted for operating it, sometimes slightly less (e.g. about 145 million DM in 15 years of nuclear operation). For scale, converted that'd be about 50% higher than a Panamax container ship has in operating costs today. For a smallish bulk freighter that could transport 14,000 tons.
The crew of the ship was pretty large and highly qualified, so that'd be a cost factor that can be driven down in regular operation.

What killed its operation was however apparently the increasing nuclear fuel costs combined with the costs of getting rid of the old rods during refueling. Inflation-adjusted the original fuel rods during construction cost around the equivalent of 7 million Euro today; the 1978 third fueling cost was estimated at the equivalent of 83 million Euro today, including about 20 million for getting rid of the old set of rods. That's why the ship was cancelled and sold.

 

[swerve]

Would the no canal access really matter for a nuclear powered vessel assuming it was reliable? The more pressing issue is the hull lifetime for a cargo vessel is likely less than the reactor lifetime.

If a ship has to go a long way round, that increases operating costs. Crew costs, maintenance, capital tied up for longer . . . each trip costs more, even if you're not burning fuel oil. Some of that cost is borne by the customers, whose products are sitting in a ship's hold for longer.

Whether it's enough to affect viability, I don't know.

 

[John Fedup]

If a ship has to go a long way round, that increases operating costs. Crew costs, maintenance, capital tied up for longer . . . each trip costs more, even if you're not burning fuel oil. Some of that cost is borne by the customers, whose products are sitting in a ship's hold for longer.

Whether it's enough to affect viability, I don't know.

I don’t know either but if the Suez comes a continuous danger zone then customers may opt for long and slow.

 

[Ananda]

China’s thorium breakthrough could power ships for ten years on a single charge

China’s recent breakthrough in converting thorium to uranium could potentially free it from reliance on imported uranium. Lianhe Zaobao correspondent Yu Zeyuan takes a look at the advantages of thorium as a nuclear fuel and how it could change China’s position in the global energy landscape.

www.thinkchina.sg

The key is Monazite supply and anti corrosion breakthrough that China develop. The article shown the stages of development from 2MW research, up to 100MW power plant. The compact nature of Thorium reactor enable them to be put in arid area where most China Monazite reserve locate as Rare Earth Minerals by products.

Monazite reserve is also what put Indonesia colaborate with US Thorcon on building molten salt reactor. Thorcon convince their technology of 2x250 MW power plant, will be ready by first half of next decade. Thorcon will use reactor on barges that be connected to each other as base on their reactors. Indonesian monazite reserve mostly come from by products from tin mining.

Thorcon Mulai Konstruksi PLTN pada Tahun 2027 - Dunia Energi

JAKARTA – PT Thorcon Power Indonesia (TPI) akan memulai konstruksi pembangunan Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga Nuklir (PLTN) pada tahun 2027. Langkah ini dilakukan seiring terbitnya persetujuan dari Badan Pengawas Tenaga Nuklir (BAPETEN) untuk Evaluasi Tapak PLTN Thorcon di Pulau Kelasa, Kepulauan...

www.dunia-energi.com

Regulatory approval for Indonesian site survey – Thorcon

thorconpower.com

From shipyard to grid: Thorcon races to deliver Indonesia’s first commercial nuclear plant | EXCLUSIVE | Reccessary

Nuclear technology continues to evolve, and fourth-generation molten salt reactors (MSRs) offer safer and more stable low-carbon power. Singapore-based American developer Thorcon, which uses this technology, has made significant progress in Indonesia and

www.reccessary.com

.

Still Thorium reactor tech as in development make Indonesia did not want to put all eggs in one basket for Nuclear power development. For that Indonesia nuclear agency Bapeten also in talk with Russia Rosatom on developing SMR.

Will have to see how Thorium Reactor progress developing as this is can be a breakthrough tech for more affordable nuclear power plant.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

SMRs are surely very interesting but I am seriously concerned about their actual value and pros.

SMRs are just a bit smaller when compared to current 3+ gen reactors while having only a fraction of the output, just to give an example the BWRX-300 (the first SMR being built in the west in Darlington-Canada) has an output of 300 MWe while being only 20% smaller than its 1600 MWe ESBWR "father".

The SMR market is a bubble, thats quite clear, we have dozens of designs with very little market possibilities... Look at OKLO, the nuclear startup supported by OpenAI that has a market capitalization of 20 billions without even having a licensed design...

Also to me it looks like it's a way to "hide" the clear failure of the last nuclear projects in the west, everyone knows the saga of the Vogtle NPP or the ridiculous time that was needed to built the EPRs in Olkiluoto and Flamanville.
American companies in particular cant compete on the conventional nuclear market (GE hasnt sold a reactor in decades, Westinghouse did better but only thanks to China) so they are trying to impose their SMR view.

I cant understand why Canada, that a has a proven and reliable sovereign design (the CANDU) decided to build 4x american SMRs at Darlington for a bigger price than a big plant.
How much was it forced by the US? How big was the pessure?

Luckily Europe started again building large reactor and by the end of this decade there will be a dozen large reactors being built in Europe at the same time, but its still not enough.
China is running at another pace...

 

[John Fedup]

SMRs are surely very interesting but I am seriously concerned about their actual value and pros.

SMRs are just a bit smaller when compared to current 3+ gen reactors while having only a fraction of the output, just to give an example the BWRX-300 (the first SMR being built in the west in Darlington-Canada) has an output of 300 MWe while being only 20% smaller than its 1600 MWe ESBWR "father".

The SMR market is a bubble, thats quite clear, we have dozens of designs with very little market possibilities... Look at OKLO, the nuclear startup supported by OpenAI that has a market capitalization of 20 billions without even having a licensed design...

Also to me it looks like it's a way to "hide" the clear failure of the last nuclear projects in the west, everyone knows the saga of the Vogtle NPP or the ridiculous time that was needed to built the EPRs in Olkiluoto and Flamanville.
American companies in particular cant compete on the conventional nuclear market (GE hasnt sold a reactor in decades, Westinghouse did better but only thanks to China) so they are trying to impose their SMR view.

I cant understand why Canada, that a has a proven and reliable sovereign design (the CANDU) decided to build 4x american SMRs at Darlington for a bigger price than a big plant.
How much was it forced by the US? How big was the pessure?

Luckily Europe started again building large reactor and by the end of this decade there will be a dozen large reactors being built in Europe at the same time, but its still not enough.
China is running at another pace...

Yes, CANDU is a reliable and sovereign design that has also had export success. Unfortunately the CANDU project at Darlington was hugely over budget as were later re-tubing/upgrades at Darlington, Pickering, and the Bruce. The SMR at Darlington is a test on the economics of building them in Canada. If it goes over budget, it will be the last BWRX-300. Canada is funding a new CANDU design, the 1000 MW Monark.

 

[Ananda]

SMR also being attractive for some potential users on the compact dimensions but with (according to Nuclear experts) relative similar security level with larger Reactors. In sense it is attractive for smaller population area in large and diverse nation. Which is why SMR got traction in those countries.

 

[John Fedup]

SMR also being attractive for some potential users on the compact dimensions but with (according to Nuclear experts) relative similar security level with larger Reactors. In sense it is attractive for smaller population area in large and diverse nation. Which is why SMR got traction in those countries.

In the case of Canada, there are several remote population areas that would be well served by smaller SMRs thus eliminating the need for long transmission lines which are in themselves expensive to build and maintain.

 

[Ananda]

there are several remote population areas that would be well served by smaller SMRs thus eliminating the need for long transmission lines which are in themselves expensive to build and maintain.

Indonesia Jajaki Penggunaan Reaktor Nuklir Modular untuk Pasok Listrik di Wilayah Timur

Teknologi reaktor modular kecil ini disebut cocok untuk memenuhi kebutuhan energi di wilayah timur Indonesia yang memiliki karakteristik kepulauan

lestari.kompas.com

Yes, Indonesia looking on this Tech for building 'clean' energy but reacheable for small Islands and population center. This is why Eastern Part become target. That's the attraction for SMR, get energy to diverse smallers population center, for relative large diverse area.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

That can certainly be a solution for remote or very undeveloped areas... I totally see the "benefit" of an SMR in these circumstances; but my point is another.

An SMR (Small Modular Reactor) *I know we all know what smr means but its just for users that are not familiar with the topic* has 2 main advantages:
- being Small, which means its fitted for areas with low electric demand that would not benefit from a large reactor.
- being Modular, in the sense that it benefits (theorically) from high numbers and factory building.

So, to actually enjoy those benefits, you need low electric demand in that particular area and high numbers.

What's exactly the point in all those programs both in the west and east? Everyone seems like they want their smr design, but then you loose the entire point of the modular thing.
Why would you invest in an SMR to build 2 of them? Or even 6?

Thats why I look very suspiciously at those "4th gen nuclear innovative designs" that promise to revolutionize the nuclear industry...
Also to actually benefit from the 4th gen you should have a fuel cycle program, that is the case if you are Europe, the US, Russia or China... but if you dont have the capacity and capability to reprocess MOX fuel etc etc... then there's no really any reason to go for a liquid metal reactor instead of a water one.

Half of the world nuclear is processed by ORANO in La Hague and you can see its not exactly a facility you set up in a couple of years...