Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:

9 Comments

  1. Very good news. Us Brits need some credible alternatives for when the EPR at Hinckley C gets canned. SMRs will help remove the massive upfront capital.

      1. Hi Ed, I was aware of the Horizon ABWR and AP1000 but they’ll both still be massive capital projects so can be attacked in the same way as EPR (multiple appeals that they constitute state aid, no institution large enough to fund, cost of delay massive due to cost of capital, long time to completion).

        I live on the HS2 rail route and the anti HS2 campaign has used the same delaying tactics to push up cost and try and kill that. It’s a good technique but doesn’t work well against smaller projects.

  2. I think Nuscale’s design is a better PWR SMR as its shutdown is entirely passive. On the molten salt reactor side Moltex Engergy’s design looks to have the fewest challenges.

  3. Rod, you say:

    Aside: The press release lede exaggerates to the point of inaccuracy by labeling the interrupted mPower reactor as “the world’s first commercially viable Generation III++ small modular nuclear reactor.

    So first of all, what distinguishes a Gen III++? Also it’s unclear whether you’re pointing out that it’s not yet commercially-viable or whether there’s another Gen III++ SMR that precedes it.

  4. I’ve got to wonder about the timing of this, coming so closely after the DOE’s siting announcement with NuScale. Does BWXT now see themselves in danger of being left in the dust by competitors who didn’t engage in a development slowdown? If so, it’s a testament to the power of small policy changes in high places.

    1. Keith,

      I definitely suspect that recent positive news regarding support for advanced reactor designs/SMRs has caused this decision to be made.

  5. Since the Integrated System Test (IST) facility was mentioned, I’d recommend watching its short promotional video or on youtube.

    I found it especially interesting as I built a similar facility on a smaller scale (e.g., 4 heater rods vs the 8×8 grid they mentioned in the video… neat seeing all the power leads in the video) for my graduate work. A lot of work goes into these facilities as I’m sure many readers are already aware.

  6. Why would they proceed unless a potential client or two gave some sort of indication that they were interested. Not sure what Rod was meaning regarding the attorneys were done talking. Personally I would be nervous to proceed with other 4th gen SMR models being submitted for review that are promising $40 – 50/MWh LCOE delivered to the grid and can compete without subsidy with coal and natural gas. My understanding is that NuScale is around $100/MWh.