Feasibility of domestic nuclear power
Discussion
Of late, it seems like our national conception of energy is completely screwed up; gas (35% of electricity supply) prices dictating 100% of electricity cost is widely projected to cause £900+ PCM electricity bills into next year.
Over the life-cycle of a nuclear reactor, that represents a good £108,000 per decade. Current reactors price per kilowatt would give a 25-40 KWe reactor at that price point, which could easily supply all domestic requirements, with heating coming from recycling the waste heat from the reactor. These modular mini-reactors could easily be made into mini-reactor assemblies by stacking together for higher electrical demands if required.
Given the cost must be reducible through market efficiencies of producing tens, perhaps hundreds for export, of millions of modular mini-reactors like these over traditional and largely one-off GWe reactors, it seems reasonable to me that the £108,000 should drop, perhaps very substantially.
With the quantities of demand for electricity predicted to rise extremely over coming decades as vehicles transition to electric, it is obvious that the present system will not cope with that. These domestic mini-reactors (probably only a ton or two after covering them with enough shielding to reduce radiation to background levels) would also be a very helpful solution to supplying 40+ million electric vehicles with electricity, given it is very unlikely that domestic electricity power consumption will exceed 25-40KW on a 24/7 basis. It may even be possible to put such a reactor in the car itself, although I haven't worked out the radiation amount given off. (we live in a world of 2.5 ton SUVs, so who cares about the prospect of 3.5 ton SUVs?)
When considering commercial electricity bills, this prospect only makes even more sense, with many projections predicting businesses may not survive the electricity bill increases, but could survive if this model was adopted.
So, why not?
Over the life-cycle of a nuclear reactor, that represents a good £108,000 per decade. Current reactors price per kilowatt would give a 25-40 KWe reactor at that price point, which could easily supply all domestic requirements, with heating coming from recycling the waste heat from the reactor. These modular mini-reactors could easily be made into mini-reactor assemblies by stacking together for higher electrical demands if required.
Given the cost must be reducible through market efficiencies of producing tens, perhaps hundreds for export, of millions of modular mini-reactors like these over traditional and largely one-off GWe reactors, it seems reasonable to me that the £108,000 should drop, perhaps very substantially.
With the quantities of demand for electricity predicted to rise extremely over coming decades as vehicles transition to electric, it is obvious that the present system will not cope with that. These domestic mini-reactors (probably only a ton or two after covering them with enough shielding to reduce radiation to background levels) would also be a very helpful solution to supplying 40+ million electric vehicles with electricity, given it is very unlikely that domestic electricity power consumption will exceed 25-40KW on a 24/7 basis. It may even be possible to put such a reactor in the car itself, although I haven't worked out the radiation amount given off. (we live in a world of 2.5 ton SUVs, so who cares about the prospect of 3.5 ton SUVs?)
When considering commercial electricity bills, this prospect only makes even more sense, with many projections predicting businesses may not survive the electricity bill increases, but could survive if this model was adopted.
So, why not?
If I understand correctly your suggestion is based on bills of £900 pcm? If so that’s problem one. Yes, there is suggestions that we might get bills that high, but if we do most people won’t be able to afford them short term, never mind over a decade. Costs would have to come down a lot for it to be viable.
xeny said:
Isn’t the critical mass for non weapons grade fissiles going to be prohibitively large?
Good point.It doesn't need weapons grade uranium for the house application (a nuclear powered car would however) as that's 90%+, but realistically it needs at least 10% enrichment to be viable source for the application.
That's not an insurmountable problem, but it definitely isn't going to be cheap enough for a ten year cycle as originally conceived.
Electro1980 said:
If I understand correctly your suggestion is based on bills of £900 pcm? If so that’s problem one. Yes, there is suggestions that we might get bills that high, but if we do most people won’t be able to afford them short term, never mind over a decade. Costs would have to come down a lot for it to be viable.
Yes, the premise assumes that, and follows that assumption by thinking of how to reduce the cost to supply rather than cutting back demand as people will most likely have to do.Longer term, demand will rise however, so whatever happens we need to be thinking about increasing the supply of electricity. This concept has the advantage that power is produced at the place where it is used and relies on economics of scale traditional nuclear can't do. Upfront costs are immense yes, definitely not viable on ten year terms as I bad posited. Perhaps a model of considering the reactor as part of the ownership structure of the property in question and we planned for a fourty year cycle instead would be better?
Edited by ...... on Sunday 28th August 07:46
Jimbo. said:
Have a read of Eve of Destruction by Colnel John Hughes-Wilson. The last thing we humans can be trusted with - particular at domestic level - are millions of mini nuclear reactors. We’re just too error prone and sometimes downright stupid.
Should have said earlier, but I'm thinking that the reactor comes in a self-contained box (several cubic metres in size on the back of a 44 ton truck) which already has the shielding in place into a pre-dug pit, the wiring and plumbing is then connected and concrete poured in to cover the assembly so that tampering is made a lot harder to prevent such issues.It would be nice if we didn't have to do that (it makes maintenance a massive pain, and that difficulty may well be what really sinks the idea) but ultimately Humanity is at the stage in our development where we are faced with either growing ourselves or being destroyed by what we created. My fundamental outlook believes that Man is capable of much greater good than we presently do, and proper harnessing of nuclear power is just another developmental stage in the history of mankind as we cease rolling around in mud and ascend from the cradle to the stars - it would be an incalculable loss to the universe if the only known planet with higher life on it was lost because we failed such a test.
xeny said:
Isn’t the critical mass for non weapons grade fissiles going to be prohibitively large?
Only if using the current reactor chemistry. There are alternatives such as Thorium / salt bath reactors that can be much smaller and done have the same radiological issues to deal with.
Small scale nuclear energy is impractical for the same reasons than putting little coal fired power stations in people’s back gardens never took off. Even leaving aside the risks of having any amount of fissile material in your back garden. The complexities of power stations don’t scale down well.
Off topic slightly but the Foundation series by Asimov forecast a future of mini-nuclear devices powering small tools and the like.
Back in today's technology probably SMR are the best way forward as they combine the ability to mass produce with meaningful power outputs. If the costs and technology are as predicted then there should be a national effort to get these in place ASAP.
Back in today's technology probably SMR are the best way forward as they combine the ability to mass produce with meaningful power outputs. If the costs and technology are as predicted then there should be a national effort to get these in place ASAP.
I know bugger all about nuclear power so this is likely a gross simplification but something I don't understand is that given we have nuclear powered ships and submarines presumably we already have the means to miniaturise nuclear reactors safely?
Or is it as simple as if there's an accident on a submarine or ship hopefully it happens in the middle of the ocean?
Or is it as simple as if there's an accident on a submarine or ship hopefully it happens in the middle of the ocean?
As far as the reasoning goes:
First, at an ontological level, the national grid has the major problem that the people running it are who got us into this state in the first place, as their regard for self-interest is to charge as much money as possible for as little actual result as possible. Domestic supply's self-interest is looking for the inverse relationship. A national grid run by competent individuals seeking the common welfare with the appropriate resources available to them would be a wonderful thing, but it is not what we have; instead we have a pseudo-free market that is ultimately parasitic on society as profits are privatised while losses are socialised. The possibility of opening up more options for competition is ultimately desirable.
Secondly, with modular reactors being the choice of development going forward, particularly in the 100MW region for national power, it raises the question of what is the most optimal methodology to deploy modular reactors. We could have 40KW in individual buildings, or 1MW for streets, or 100MW for a town, or dozens of 100MW reactors bunched together to deploy traditional powerplants. The potential flexibility of modular reactors deserves exploration.
Thirdly, society is composed of millions of individuals who all require energy to do all the various things that they want to do, and thinking through the issue from the individual's perspective is as valid an approach as thinking through from a national perspective. In my case, the individual self-interest comes down to "I need probably 20KW or so to run all my devices in my home at once if for some reason I had to, and I want enough heat to not be an issue even for my African missus even in winter, and I need electricity to charge the electric car I'm inevitably going to have voluntarily or not in coming decades which will probably be another 20KW to charge at times, and I want it to be cost effective - how well could nuclear fit these requirements, as the initial man-maths doesn't sound that unreasonable at first glance".
First, at an ontological level, the national grid has the major problem that the people running it are who got us into this state in the first place, as their regard for self-interest is to charge as much money as possible for as little actual result as possible. Domestic supply's self-interest is looking for the inverse relationship. A national grid run by competent individuals seeking the common welfare with the appropriate resources available to them would be a wonderful thing, but it is not what we have; instead we have a pseudo-free market that is ultimately parasitic on society as profits are privatised while losses are socialised. The possibility of opening up more options for competition is ultimately desirable.
Secondly, with modular reactors being the choice of development going forward, particularly in the 100MW region for national power, it raises the question of what is the most optimal methodology to deploy modular reactors. We could have 40KW in individual buildings, or 1MW for streets, or 100MW for a town, or dozens of 100MW reactors bunched together to deploy traditional powerplants. The potential flexibility of modular reactors deserves exploration.
Thirdly, society is composed of millions of individuals who all require energy to do all the various things that they want to do, and thinking through the issue from the individual's perspective is as valid an approach as thinking through from a national perspective. In my case, the individual self-interest comes down to "I need probably 20KW or so to run all my devices in my home at once if for some reason I had to, and I want enough heat to not be an issue even for my African missus even in winter, and I need electricity to charge the electric car I'm inevitably going to have voluntarily or not in coming decades which will probably be another 20KW to charge at times, and I want it to be cost effective - how well could nuclear fit these requirements, as the initial man-maths doesn't sound that unreasonable at first glance".
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I know bugger all about nuclear power so this is likely a gross simplification but something I don't understand is that given we have nuclear powered ships and submarines presumably we already have the means to miniaturise nuclear reactors safely?
Or is it as simple as if there's an accident on a submarine or ship hopefully it happens in the middle of the ocean?
You’ve probably not heard of SMRs then….. look up what Nuscale & Rolls Royce are doing in this arenaOr is it as simple as if there's an accident on a submarine or ship hopefully it happens in the middle of the ocean?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:GT03ROB said:
You’ve probably not heard of SMRs then….. look up what Nuscale & Rolls Royce are doing in this arena
Only to the extent of the Rolls Royce website.They still look very large and "permanent" for lack of a better word.
Nuscale are more advanced than Rolls currently so should be to market quicker, They have US licence approval & are rapidly signing agreements around Europe. As I work for one of Nuscales owners & have been supporting them on a few things I may have a bias to Nuscale!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff