Nuclear waste from small modular reactors

Nuclear waste from small modular reactors
Conclusions
"This analysis of three distinct SMR designs shows that, relative to a gigawatt-scale PWR, these reactors will increase the energy-equivalent volumes of SNF, long-lived LILW, and short-lived LILW by factors of up to 5.5, 30, and 35, respectively. These findings stand in contrast to the waste reduction benefits that advocates have claimed for advanced nuclear technologies. More importantly, SMR waste streams will bear significant (radio-)chemical differences from those of existing reactors. Molten salt– and sodium-cooled SMRs will use highly corrosive and pyrophoric fuels and coolants that, following irradiation, will become highly radioactive. Relatively high concentrations of 239Pu and 235U in low–burnup SMR SNF will render re criticality a significant risk for these chemically unstable waste streams.
SMR waste streams that are susceptible to exothermic chemical reactions or nuclear criticality when in contact with water or other repository materials are unsuitable for direct geologic disposal. Hence, the large volumes of reactive SMR waste will need to be treated, conditioned, and appropriately packaged prior to geological disposal. These processes will introduce significant costs—and likely, radiation exposure and fissile material proliferation pathways—to the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and entail no apparent benefit for long-term safety
Although we have analyzed only three of the dozens of proposed SMR designs, these findings are driven by the basic physical reality that, relative to a larger reactor with a similar design and fuel cycle, neutron leakage will be enhanced in the SMR core. Therefore, most SMR designs entail a significant net disadvantage for nuclear waste disposal activities. Given that SMRs are incompatible with existing nuclear waste disposal technologies and concepts, future studies should address whether safe interim storage of reactive SMR waste streams is credible in the context of a continued delay in the development of a geologic repository in the United States.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111833119
We don't want them and we don't need them!!!

Drop the ban on nuclear and let private enterprise decide if it is feasible for Australia. Simple as that.
But as SA is going to have nuclear submarines we are going to have to do something.
Maybe we can hook a nuclear sub into the grid

The analysis of small modular reactors (SMRs) suggests that they may increase the volume of nuclear waste and introduce challenges related to waste management and disposal. The waste from SMRs can have different chemical properties and risks, such as reactivity when in contact with water or other materials. This may necessitate additional processing and packaging, leading to increased costs and potential proliferation risks.

The study concludes that SMRs could pose challenges for nuclear waste disposal, and further research is needed to determine if safe interim storage is a viable option in the absence of a geologic repository. You can read more about this analysis in the provided link. If you need assistance with essays or research papers, you can consider using the service at pay for essay writing.

This is worth reading re nuk power reactors and set up costs involved.

https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/

Interesting but not applicable to modern nuclear technology.
iFit was no one would be building them yet many countries are.

I'm with you mate. Bring on atomic power.
The only prob with nuclear power is the cost of building the reactors, after that the electricity produced is clean and cheap although there is a long build time and a lot of expertise required to operate and maintain these reactors and that does not come cheap.
On the other hand, solar and wind power and toxic battery back up is never going to solve our energy problems that are arising  as a direct result of closing down our coal fired electricity power supply.

On top of that our illustrious Gov's are allowing our population to increase through immigration at  too fast a rate that is causing a rapidly  increasing demand for  food, housing and power requirements, all of which is becoming too expensive or is decreasing in supply.

The best thing to do would be to order several SMRs now and halt all renewable installation.
SMRs are far cheaper than renewables if you take into account the cost of building thousands of km of new power lines for renewables which aren't required for nuclear.

adrian ss wrote:I'm with you mate. Bring on atomic power.
The only prob with nuclear power is the cost of building the reactors, after that the electricity produced is clean and cheap although there is a long build time and a lot of expertise required to operate and maintain these reactors and that does not come cheap.
On the other hand, solar and wind power and toxic battery back up is never going to solve our energy problems that are arising  as a direct result of closing down our coal fired electricity power supply.

On top of that our illustrious Gov's are allowing our population to increase through immigration at  too fast a rate that is causing a rapidly  increasing demand for  food, housing and power requirements, all of which is becoming too expensive or is decreasing in supply.

Australia has almost unlimited potential for wind ,solar and other renewable energy sources. We don't need or want nuclear power which is far , far more expensive. Also more than 200 sites have been identified as potential sites for pumped hydo storage of excess electricity. Excess electricity can also be stored as hydrogen and converted when required into electrical energy so their are alternatives to batteries .Their also non Li batteries under active development eg zinc bromine flow technology and Sodium-ion technology or iron-flow chemistry.

granite2 wrote:The best thing to do would be to order several SMRs now and halt all renewable installation.

Why order a technology which is unproven,not costed and not yet in commercial operation at scale?                                            

Conclusion
There is no realistic prospect that SMRs can make a significant dent in the need to transition rapidly to a carbon-free electricity system. The prospects of timely contributions by even the light water designs, with NuScale being the most advanced in schedule, are dismal. The prospects for reactors of other designs, like those with graphite fuels or sodium cooling, are even more so. 
It will be a tough road for SMRs to achieve cost parity with large reactors. And that cost will still be far too high. Two things are in critically short supply on the road to a climate-friendly energy system: time and money. An objective evaluation indicates that SMRs are poor on both counts. There is simply no realistic prospect for SMRs to play materially significant role in climate change mitigation.”
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/why-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-wont-help-counter-climate-crisis

Bit of info here re SMRs.
https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Small-modular-reactors-in-the-Australian-context_Ben-Heard_2022-update.pdf

https://www.energytech.com/energy-efficiency/article/21256882/ge-hitachi-nuclear-delivers-bwrx300-small-modular-reactor-application-to-british-regulators

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/04/westinghouse-announces-a-small-nuclear-reactor.html

There is much more to life than simply covering the planet with wind generators and billions of solar panels.

I hope planecare reads those links. Especially the last one. Not that he's likely to believe them as they don't fit his narrative.
I find it hard to believe he thinks he is smarter than all those countries using and building nuclear

granite2 wrote:I hope planecare reads those links. Especially the last one. Not that he's likely to believe them as they don't fit his narrative.
I find it hard to believe he thinks he is smarter than all those countries using and building nuclear

As a matter of interest can you tells us how many small modular reactors are currently in commercial operation in say the USA and Canada?

Like any new project it takes a bit of Governmental red tape to get some things up and running.
SMRs for commercial and public use are not the same as those fitted to nuke powered submarines in that  military grade stuff is subject to far fewer restrictions.

If I could afford A micro SMR I would have one powering my house.....I reckon One would just fit in my shed and it would power my house and maybe a few of my neighbors for the next 40 years

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-certifies-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design

The answer to my question is NONE! For for those under construction their has been massive cost blowouts and delays. Also the cost of power they may produce looks like being more expensive than that of conventional reactors and far more expensive than wind or solar! To be commercially viable they may need massive subsidies!!!Nuclear energy is an expensive way to generate electricity.
“In the 2021 edition of its annual cost report, Wall Street firm Lazard estimated that the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from new nuclear plants will be $131–204 per megawatt-hour (MWh), whereas newly constructed utility-scale solar and wind plants produce electricity at somewhere between $26–50MWh. “The gap between nuclear power and renewables is large and growing,” says Ramana. “While nuclear costs have increased with time, the levelised cost of electricity for solar and wind has declined rapidly, and this is expected to continue over the coming decades.”
https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/small-modular-reactors-smrs-what-is-taking-so-long/?cf-view&cf-closed
We were promised smaller nuclear reactors. Where are they?
“The true promise of SMRs will be realized only when it’s time to build the second, the third, the fifth, and the hundredth reactor, DOE’s Huff says, and both companies and regulators are learning how to speed up the process to get there. But the benefits of SMRs are all theoretical until reactors are running, supplying electricity without the need for fossil fuels.
“It becomes truly real when electrons go on the grid,” Huff says.”
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/08/1067992/smaller-nuclear-reactors/

There were three SMRs in operation as of last year. One in Russia one in India and one in China with three more under construction. There are many more on order from Europe and Canada.
Actually Russia had three operating in remote areas as far back as two years ago but they're not saying anything about them at the moment. Probably due to security reasons.
PC if you open your eyes and your mind you will find that SMRs are the future of power generation. Stop listening to blackout Bowen and his crazy idea that 82 percent of emissions can ever be reached using wind and solar.
I understand that renewable companies are running scared because they see SMRs as a huge threat to the billions they are raking in. They're producing a great amount of disinformation on SMRs and desperate to stop them.
The best way to test the market is to throw open Australia to allow the nuclear power industry a go. If it doesn't work they won't be interested but if SMRs are a viable option Australia will be the winner.
How can it hurt?

PC, I suggest you follow the link on Adrian's last post, it may enlighten you. If it doesn't then you are a lost cause.

granite2 wrote:PC, I suggest you follow the link on Adrian's last post, it may enlighten you. If it doesn't then you are a lost cause.

It will be 15 -20 years before we know if SMR are economically viable! And which of the many SMR designs would you recommend and why?

granite2 wrote:There were three SMRs in operation as of last year. One in Russia one in India and one in China with three more under construction.

The floating SMR in Russia finished up costing more that six times the original estimate!!!!!

Seeing as it was the very first of its kind that is understandable. That and it was built by Russia.
And it seems you must concede you were wrong to claim there were no SMRs in existence.

granite2 wrote:Seeing as it was the very first of its kind that is understandable. That and it was built by Russia.
And it seems you must concede you were wrong to claim there were no SMRs in existence.

The question i asked was this:As a matter of interest can you tells us how many small modular reactors are currently in commercial operation in say the USA and Canada? my answer is correct- NONE!!!

I think you're splitting hairs PC

As of 2023, there are more than eighty modular reactor designs under development in 19 countries, and the first SMR units are in operation in Russia and China.
There are 2  SMRs operating in USSR and China. although I have not been able to find out much about them.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-08-10/China-installs-core-module-of-world-s-first-commercial-small-nuclear-reactor-1m9nIsfr77q/index.html

https://www.outlookindia.com/business/russia-develops-futuristic-nuclear-plant-operational-in-far-east-region-news-292995

adrian ss wrote:As of 2023, there are more than eighty modular reactor designs under development in 19 countries,

Most if not all of these designs will never see the light of day and become commercial!!! NuScales design has been approved but its development started in 2000 and despite getting over 600m dollars from the US government still has NO commercially operating reactor and its expected that it won't do so until 2030 if everything goes to plan!

PC, how much is the renewable industry paying you???

Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular reactor
https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor
Small Modular Reactor update: The fading promise of low-cost power from UAMPS' SMR
https://ieefa.org/resources/small-modular-reactor-update-fading-promise-low-cost-power-uamps-smr
Small size, big problems: NuScale’s troublesome small modular nuclear reactor plan
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2023/07/small-size-big-problems-nuscales-troublesome-small-modular-nuclear
NuScale Small Modular Reactor Costs Hit Hard by Inflation
https://energycentral.com/c/ec/nuscale-small-modular-reactor-costs-hit-hard-inflation
NuScale has already revised its cost estimates upward for its first plant, the Carbon Free Power Project. It was initially projected to produce power at $58 per megawatt-hour, but has now risen to $89 per megawatt-hour as costs of materials like steel have grown and interest rates surged.
No matter the size of an SMR, they have unresolved cost and safety concerns!!!!

well if my quicky calculations are correct then we are currently paying 250 AUD M/wh.

We are paying an av cost of 26 cents per Killowatt hour. That equates to 26 x 1000 = 26,000 cents per one megawatt hour =250 AUD.
The SMR mentioned is producing one megawatt hour for 89 dollars USD = 138 AUD at current exchange rate of 0.642

adrian ss wrote:well if my quicky calculations are correct then we are currently paying 250 AUD M/wh.

We are paying an av cost of 26 cents per Killowatt hour. That equates to 26 x 1000 = 26,000 cents per one megawatt hour =250 AUD.
The SMR mentioned is producing one megawatt hour for 89 dollars USD = 138 AUD at current exchange rate of 0.642

Most of big price increase is due to the huge rises in coal prices!Wind and solar electricity costs are of the order 40 AUD M/wh.

Wind turbines are all made in China as are most solar panels. How much is that costing Australians. Add to that subsidies for renewables that make coal and gas subsidies look like pocket change. Add that into the costs plus ten thousand km of new grid.
And now Chalmers just admitted net Zero is impossible to achieve .
Labor is the biggest disaster to ever be elected.

granite2 wrote:Wind turbines are all made in China as are most solar panels. How much is that costing Australians. Add to that subsidies for renewables that make coal and gas subsidies look like pocket change. Add that into the costs plus ten thousand km of new grid.
And now Chalmers just admitted net Zero is impossible to achieve .
Labor is the biggest disaster to ever be elected.

Chalmers has not said that!!!!!
Key points:
Australia appears unlikely to meet its 2030 climate targets on its current trajectory
The federal treasurer has acknowledged Australia is behind on its renewable targets
He has signaled more investment in the next federal budget, but says the issue is bigger than just money
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-02/treasurer-concedes-australia-falling-short-climate-targets/103056018