Is Small, Fast, & Cheap the Future of Nuclear Energy?
Is Small, Fast, & Cheap the Future of Nuclear Energy?
Nuclear is reliable, works 24/7, and generates a lot of power, all for essentially zero carbon. Get an exclusive Surfshark deal! Enter promo code UNDECIDED for an extra 3 months free at https://surfshark.deals/undecided. That comes at a price, though. Nuclear plants are really expensive, legislatively challenging, difficult to scale, and have a hotly debated reputation. But what if there was a way to build smaller, cheaper, and safer nuclear power plants sized for individual businesses or small communities? It might sound like an Atomic Age dream, but it’s already here. Are small modular reactors the path towards a nuclear future? And is nuclear power really as bad as many of us think it is?
Corrections:
13:06 Last Energy has said it’s under $100M
Check out the full interview with Bret Kugelmass from Last Energy: • 164: Just Go Nuclear? or here https://stilltbd.fm/episodes/164-just…
Watch Why This NASA Battery May Be The Future of Energy Storage: • Why This NASA Battery May Be The Futu…
Video script and citations:
https://undecidedmf.com/is-small-fast…
Get my achieve energy security with solar guide:
https://link.undecidedmf.com/solar-guide
Follow-up podcast:
Video version - / @stilltbd
Audio version - http://bit.ly/stilltbdfm
Join the Undecided Discord server:
https://geni.us/undecided-discord
👋 Support Undecided on Patreon!
https://www.patreon.com/mattferrell
⚙️ Gear \u0026 Products I Like
https://undecidedmf.com/shop/
Great sustainable products for your home:
https://geni.us/buildwithrise
Visit my Energysage Portal:
Research solar panels and get quotes for free!
http://www.energysage.com/p/undecided/
Or find community solar near you:
https://communitysolar.energysage.com…
For a curated solar buying experience
EnergyPal’s free personalized quotes:
https://energypal.com/undecided
Tesla Referral Code:
Get 1,000 free supercharging miles
or a discount on Tesla Solar \u0026 Powerwalls
https://ts.la/matthew84515
👉 Follow Me
Mastodon
https://mastodon.social/@mattferrell
Twitter
https://twitter.com/mattferrell
https://twitter.com/undecidedMF
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/mattferrell
https://www.instagram.com/undecidedmf
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/undecidedMF/
Website
https://undecidedmf.com
📺 YouTube Tools I Recommend
Audio file(s) provided by Epidemic Sound
http://bit.ly/UndecidedEpidemic
TubeBuddy
https://www.tubebuddy.com/undecided
VidIQ
https://vidiq.com/undecided
I may earn a small commission for my endorsement or recommendation to products or services linked above, but I wouldn’t put them here if I didn’t like them. Your purchase helps support the channel and the videos I produce. Thank you.
Content
0 -> A portion of this video is
brought to you by Surfshark.
2.7 -> Nuclear is reliable, works 24/7, and
generates a lot of power, all for
7.38 -> essentially zero carbon. That comes at a price,
though. Nuclear plants are really expensive,
11.58 -> legislatively challenging, difficult to
scale, and have a hotly debated reputation.
16.8 -> But what if there was a way to build smaller,
cheaper, and safer nuclear facilities sized for
21.78 -> individual businesses or small communities?
It might sound like an Atomic Age dream,
25.8 -> but it’s already here. Is shrinking and
modularizing nuclear facilities the path
30.36 -> towards a nuclear future? And is nuclear
really as bad as many of us think it is?
34.08 -> I’m Matt Ferrell … welcome to Undecided.
38.1 -> “Just go nuclear” is a common refrain in the
comments sections of my videos when I discuss
47.04 -> clean energy production. Nuclear power has a lot
to offer, both as a part of our energy mix as we
51.6 -> wait for renewables to fill in the gaps left by
fossil fuels, and as a partner with renewables in
57.54 -> general. One major problem that continues
to drag this 70-year-old technology down,
61.56 -> though, is the size and complexity of nuclear
power plants. And that’s not even getting into
66 -> the “big three” hurdles associated with nuclear:
its hazards, the waste it produces, and its cost.
71.1 -> The U.S.-based company Last Energy is attempting
to address these issues, but not by reinventing
76.14 -> the wheel, so to speak. They’re taking well
tested technology and shrinking it down into
80.46 -> modular nuclear power plants known as Small
Modular Reactors (or SMRs). These occupy only
85.8 -> half an acre of land, but they’re capable of
producing 20 megawatts of electricity. They fit
90.6 -> neatly within the dimensions of the coal power
plants they can replace, all while being much,
94.38 -> much more compact than traditional nuclear
power plants. They’re also strong enough to
97.86 -> power individual, energy-intensive sites
like factories and data centers. But if
102.24 -> they’re not reinventing the wheel and
bringing some new technology to the mix,
104.88 -> how does making nuclear power
plants smaller make them better?
108.6 -> To understand that, we have to go
back to those “big three” obstacles
111.42 -> to adopting nuclear power. We can’t really
disentangle small modular reactors without it.
117.9 -> Let’s start by addressing the
dangers associated with nuclear
120.9 -> energy. Wouldn’t building a bunch of
SMRs increase the chance of catastrophe?
124.74 -> Well, believe it or not, nuclear power is
actually one of the least deadly forms of
128.28 -> energy on the planet. It sits right between solar
and wind and way below fossil fuels, which cause
133.44 -> an estimated 3.6 million deaths a year. To put
this into perspective, Our World In Data looked
138.72 -> at deaths from pollution and accidents related to
power generation. Its 2020 report on the safety
143.46 -> of energy sources found that the death rate of
wind is 0.04 per TWh of electricity. For solar,
150.18 -> it’s 0.02. And nuclear energy? Again sandwiched
right between the two with a death rate of 0.03
156.12 -> per TWh. Meanwhile, coal topped the charts at
32.72 deaths per terawatt-hour. Keep in mind that
162.72 -> the entire planet used an estimated 22,848 TWh in
2019. That comes out to a lot of human suffering
170.1 -> caused by fossil fuels. Consider that fossil
fuel energy sources require mines and drilling
174.3 -> operations, which often account for many injuries
and fatalities, especially across a global market.
178.92 -> That of course does not mean that the
suffering caused by nuclear meltdowns is
182.7 -> any less significant. While the epidemiology
on these cases is still hotly debated,
186.78 -> it's generally agreed that 30 to 60 people
died as a direct result of Chernobyl,
190.98 -> the worst of history’s three major nuclear
disasters (the others being Fukushima and
195.36 -> Three-Mile Island). It was no doubt a tragedy
that caused incredible hardship, considering
199.86 -> these losses alongside the injuries, evacuations,
and cancer experienced in the aftermath. However,
204.96 -> looking at the long view, we’ve had nuclear
plants since the 50s. There are 413 active
210.42 -> nuclear power plants in the world today, but there
have been only three serious disasters in total.
214.68 -> It’s also worth noting that Chernobyl was an
RBMK reactor developed by the Soviet Union,
218.94 -> which is very different from the pressurized-water
reactors (or PWRs) that make up the vast majority
224.46 -> of reactors around the world today. The specifics
of these reactors could be their own video,
228.36 -> but suffice to say RBMKs had a number of
design flaws that made them a lot less safe
232.86 -> than PWRs. In a nutshell, a PWR is just a much
better design with decades of safe operation.
239.88 -> How does Last Energy’s small modular reactor
deal with the potential dangers of nuclear
243.54 -> energy? Their reactors are also PWRs, with
the (now common) additional safety feature of
248.64 -> an underground site. If a meltdown happens, the
risk of harmful particles escaping into the air
253.14 -> is greatly reduced. Plus, smaller reactors don’t
run as hot, so they’re less likely to melt down.
258.54 -> A smaller reactor will also have fewer moving
parts, thus fewer potential failure points.
263.52 -> While the risk of airborne radioactive
particle releases is lower, the underground
267 -> site must be carefully chosen to avoid
potential contamination of groundwater,
270.54 -> both during normal operation and during flooding,
273.3 -> where rainwater could be contaminated
before running off into the watershed.
276.72 -> So, when you take into account the
number of disasters relative to the
279.6 -> number of power plants, technological
advances, and new safety procedures,
282.9 -> the dangers of nuclear energy even in the event of
a meltdown are far less of an issue than before.
287.46 -> But what about nuclear waste and how
Last Energy is planning to handle that?
292.2 -> Before we get to that, there’s something
else that I don’t think is a waste … and
295.26 -> that’s today’s sponsor, Surfshark. I always
recommend using a VPN when using public Wifi,
299.52 -> but VPNs can be very useful even when you’re
home. A lot of online services use some pretty
304.08 -> sophisticated commercial tracking and machine
learning to apply very targeted advertising ... a
308.46 -> VPN can protect you from some of that. SurfShark’s
CleanWeb does a great job blocking ads, trackers,
313.44 -> and malicious websites making it safer to
use the internet even at home. And you can
317.46 -> even make it look like your IP address is
coming from a completely different country.
322.62 -> This can come in handy if you want to stream
a video that’s only available from a specific
326.1 -> location. One of the best parts of SurfShark is
that it’s easy to set up on all your devices,
330.72 -> whether that’s iPhone or Android, Mac or PC.
SurfShark is the only VPN to offer one account
336.06 -> to use with an unlimited number of devices.
Use my code to get 3 extra months for free.
340.68 -> SurfShark offers a 30-day money-back guarantee,
so there’s no risk to try it out for yourself.
345.48 -> Link is in the description below. Thanks to
Surfshark and to all of you for supporting
348.9 -> the channel. Back to the question about nuclear
waste and how Last Energy is going to handle it.
353.64 -> The vast majority of reactors here in the U.S.
use a “once through” nuclear fuel cycle. To
358.26 -> keep the explanation simple, the uranium ore is
mined, enriched into the right kind of uranium,
362.34 -> turned into fuel pellets, and used in a reactor.
Then those spent pellets become radioactive
367.14 -> waste that needs to be stored somewhere. And
yes, I was just as disappointed as you are to
371.64 -> learn that radioactive waste is just li’l gray
pellets and not glowing green ninja turtle ooze.
376.5 -> It’s important to note that only 3% of
that waste is the scary stuff that will
379.98 -> be harmful for thousands of years to come.
We don’t make very much of it either — just
383.64 -> around half an Olympic swimming pool per year —
which sounds like a lot, but really isn’t when
388.44 -> you consider just how much carbon-free energy
we’re getting in the deal. You can also rest a
392.58 -> little easier knowing there are zero recorded
deaths attributed to nuclear waste leakage.
397.2 -> How do we safely store it, though? The most
common method, at least here in the United States,
400.32 -> is called “dry casking.” First, all those rod
assemblies take a refreshing dip at the bottom
405.18 -> of a spent fuel pool. Water is of course great
at cooling things off, but it's also remarkably
410.04 -> good at dampening radiation. Once everything is
nice and inert, usually in a few years’ time,
414.84 -> the rods are then placed in stainless-steel
canisters, which are welded shut. Boom,
419.16 -> there’s your dry cask. The casks are only rated to
last about 40 years, but the waste can be re-homed
424.62 -> to a new cask, or moved to a more permanent
storage facility, the most promising of which
429.42 -> being Deep Geological Disposal (DGD) Facilities.
These do what exactly they say on the tin:
434.76 -> We place the casks deep underground in
geologically stable regions and entomb them
439.5 -> under tons of concrete and earth. There’s just one
not-so-little thing: there aren’t any long-term
445.32 -> storage facilities currently operational, which
means most nuclear facilities have to keep those
450.06 -> casks on site, at least for now. Good news
though, Finland is set to open the first DGD
455.7 -> facility later this year, so help is coming.
Still, this is not the kind of problem you
460.5 -> can ignore, especially if nuclear power reaches
the popularity some want it to. With hundreds of
465.12 -> facilities storing literal tons of this harmful
stuff for — no joke — up to 24,000 years, there’s
470.7 -> a lot of possible points of failure. Solutions
like dry casking and deep geological storage might
475.08 -> be good enough for now, but are they 24,000-year
proof solutions? It's difficult to say.
482.4 -> What’s Last Energy doing to mitigate the issue
of nuclear waste? Their power plants can last
486.48 -> about 40 years, but about every six years they’ll
swap the old reactor for a new one — a lot like
491.76 -> replacing a battery, just, y’know, nuclear-sized.
Here's the neat part: the old reactor continues to
497.4 -> house all the spent fuel inside. After all,
it was safe when we were smashing atoms to
501.72 -> create electricity. It’ll be even safer now
that the fuel is spent. Then Last Energy can
506.16 -> just haul the whole reactor-slash-waste-cask
off with minimal danger or chance of spillage.
510.84 -> But … we could also look at recycling that waste
into more energy. How? A closed fuel cycle.
517.68 -> Because more than 90% of the potential
energy remains in spent nuclear fuel,
522 -> even after five years of operation in a
reactor, spent waste could actually be
526.14 -> reused as a nuclear fuel. Better yet, every
time that waste goes through the fuel cycle,
530.46 -> the halflife of the radioactive elements
are reduced down to hundreds of years,
534.36 -> which is obviously a much more manageable
timeframe than 24,000 years. The United
539.22 -> States currently does not recycle its
nuclear waste, though other countries do.
543.06 -> Japan has been leading the R&D charge in recycling
this waste. The Japanese Federation of Electric
547.92 -> Power Companies argues that on top of making
the waste safer, its closed fuel cycle adds
552.66 -> another layer of energy security, reduces
dependence on foreign imports of uranium,
556.38 -> and allows for getting the most energy out
of the uranium already purchased. What’s
561.06 -> not to like? Last Energy isn’t promising
this, but it's theoretically an option.
565.38 -> Now that we’ve established that nuclear energy
is much safer than you might have thought,
568.8 -> here comes the next big question: The same
probably goes for the high costs, right? As
573.66 -> much as the “just go nuclear” crowd likes to point
out its huge benefits, the cost of nuclear power
577.86 -> is one of the biggest limiting factors. It’s just
more expensive. Nuclear power plants are indeed
583.14 -> really expensive in terms of both “capital”
costs and operating costs. Capital refers to
588.06 -> components of the initial price tag: stuff like
site preparation, engineering, manufacturing,
592.26 -> construction, commissioning, permitting, financing
… you get the idea. Altogether, initial costs
598.26 -> for your average 110 MW plant are about $6-10
billion. Ouch. These costs are a lot higher than
605.64 -> other forms of energy production because nuclear
plants are both very complex and naturally held
610.02 -> to extremely high safety and design standards.
Almost every part of the process from beginning
614.04 -> to end requires extensive work at the hands of
multiple highly qualified experts. And it's a
618.84 -> long process too, with the average construction
time for even the most modern plants taking about
623.94 -> 9.2 years to complete. That can leave a lot of
room for potential design changes, tech upgrades,
629.34 -> and a variety of lawsuits to crop up, all of
which compound the existing time and money issues.
634.68 -> Meanwhile, the operations tend to be
costly, too. Nuclear fuel isn’t cheap,
638.34 -> and neither is the professional labor it takes
to run a nuclear power plant. But extra expenses
643.08 -> come from standardization, or more accurately, the
lack of it. Unlike oil, gas, or other industries,
648.6 -> nuclear energy never established a standardized
set of tools. This adds to the cost because you
653.22 -> can’t just pop down to the nuclear energy store
and grab a universal plutonium rod or pipe
657.36 -> fitting. Most nuclear power plants are bespoke.
In contrast, France runs dozens of very similar,
662.64 -> standardized nuclear power plants. Besides
reducing overall costs, it provides a mechanism
666.96 -> for additional safety. If something begins to
fail at one power plant, all of the others can
671.1 -> be quickly checked and repaired. Based on this
model, a company that can provide a standardized
675.84 -> nuclear power plant can be much safer and less
expensive, as they share standardized parts.
680.82 -> And if you thought nuclear was
expensive on first blush, just wait,
684.96 -> there’s more. The measure known as levelized cost
of energy, or LCOE, represents the lifetime cost
690.9 -> divided by energy production, which makes it
easier to fairly compare technologies. LCOE
696.12 -> accounts for not just the large installation
fees that projects face, but also how much
700.08 -> bang you’re getting for your buck stretched
out over the entire span of the project.
704.34 -> According to the 2022 annual World Nuclear
Industry Status Report (WNISR), solar has
709.2 -> an LCOE of $36 per MWh, wind clocks in at
$38 per MWh, and coal costs $108 per MWh.
718.14 -> Not good for coal (one of the many reasons it’s
dying off). But nuclear power costs around $167
724.26 -> per MWh, making this the most expensive form of
the energy production amongst methods surveyed,
729.3 -> and the only one to actually go up in price
during the study period (2009-2021). Yikes.
737.22 -> Just based on economies of scale and how
difficult it is to get a plant approved,
740.52 -> you’d think the bigger plants would be more cost
effective, but here more than anywhere else,
744.78 -> Last Energy’s strategy of miniaturization and
standardization pays off. With their modular,
749.88 -> factory line, plug n’ play approach,
Last Energy can deploy their SMRs
753.78 -> blindingly fast, in less than two years.
And because they are small and modular,
758.46 -> these reactors actually scale quite well: you
can always upgrade simply by adding another
762.78 -> module. Here's their CEO, Brett Kugelmass,
who I interviewed for my Still TBD podcast.
767.04 -> “...since we're delivering literally the
exact same thing every single time. We
771.24 -> don't have to have run through a $20 or $30
million exercise for each individual plant.
777.84 -> We can hit the copy and paste button based
on the application we submitted last time.
781.92 -> They’re fast and easy to construct, but how
much will one of these reactors actually run
784.92 -> you? Around $123 million. It’s also
way cheaper than a standard-sized,
790.44 -> beefy-boy nuclear plant with its, again,
minimum $6 billion dollar price tag and almost
795.84 -> decade-long construction time. If
something does need to be repaired,
799.2 -> that’s where the benefits of standardization come
in again. No more time-consuming custom designing,
804 -> followed by review boards, followed by machining,
followed by testing and more machining…you get the
808.44 -> picture. I think Last Energy CEO Brett
Kugelmass put it best when said this:
810.78 -> "We are innovative at how uninnovative
we are. We're just not tackling a physics
815.7 -> challenge. Instead, we're tackling a supply
chain procurement and economic challenge.”
819.48 -> Now, this is the part of the video where I’d
normally say something along the lines of “Gee,
823.02 -> this tech is cool, let’s hope it
works and hits the market soon,”
825.12 -> but these plants are already
out there. Poland, the UK,
828.54 -> and others have already purchased reactors
from Last Energy and more are on the way.
832.38 -> “This is a big week. You're catching me at the end
834.12 -> of the greatest week of my life… This
week. We sold over 30 power plants…”
838.86 -> Go ahead fill in your Undecided bingo card free
space, because here, as always, there’s no one
844.08 -> solution to rule them all. No silver bullet.
There’s no “just go nuclear” or “just go solar”
849.66 -> to this debate. It’s going to take a mix of
solutions. The danger nuclear energy poses
854.22 -> to people and the environment pales in comparison
to harm caused by fossil fuels. At the same time,
859.08 -> nuclear waste is a real concern that doesn’t
have a clear, permanent solution at the moment.
863.58 -> And as good as the death rates look for nuclear
compared to other forms of energy production,
867.78 -> that doesn’t tell the whole story about the
impacts on a population affected by a nuclear
872.52 -> disaster. Ultimately, nuclear may not be _the_
solution, but it’s _a_ solution. If we can get
878.16 -> nuclear’s high price tag under control, reduce
its footprint, and speed up its deployment as
882.48 -> Last Energy is trying to do, then it could be
an essential part of the green energy mix going
886.68 -> forward. We just don’t have the time or the
luxury to let the perfect be the enemy of the
890.76 -> good … and nuclear energy, especially in this
small modular reactor form, looks really good.
896.1 -> So what do you think? Jump into the
comments and let me know. And be sure
899.82 -> to check out my follow up podcast
Still TBD where we'll be discussing
902.58 -> some of your feedback. Thanks to all of
my patrons, who get ad free versions of
906.18 -> every video. And thanks to all of you for
watching. I’ll see you in the next one.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L31px6rQ-vQ