It will be a win when it's on the grid and running.
Producing a design has never been a challenge for nuclear power, that's the easy part. The hard part has been building the designs.
Producing a design has never been a challenge for nuclear power, that's the easy part. The hard part has been building the designs.
"NuScale completed the first NRC review of an advanced reactor application, and overall the NuScale DCA review was a success. Staff completed review of the first small modular reactor design in 41 months following docketing of the application. The review was thorough; it involved over a quarter million review hours, about two million pages of documentation made available for review or audit, and about 100 gigabytes of test data." [1]
1/4 of a million review hours!
IIRC, NuScale said they spent about $500 million on getting it approved.
This was the first modular design ever approved. This is really good news and the fact that none of the climate change bills fund the quick ramping up of testing and building this design means that people don't really want quick action on reducing CO2.
I suspect there is some malaise and misallocation of resources where we could benefit from very strict regulations where it really matters.
Reminds me of the story of 3D printers where Stratasys had 80 patents expiring between 2005-2010 and as soon as that happened, 3D printers were all the rage. Sometimes, it’s not the fundamental physics, engineering or manufacturing issues; but purely artificial boundaries created by, in this case, IP regulation (patents).
"While successful, the level of effort for reviewing the NuScale DCA may not be repeatable for future reviews. Significant resources were expended on issues with little bearing on the safety of the design, matters well beyond the purview of reasonable assurance of adequate protection. Several issues were left unresolved by Staff, which could have been avoided were the recommendations here in place. During the course of review, NuScale identified several overarching problems with the review process and review criteria that could yield significant efficiencies in the review of future applications, without impacting the effectiveness of NRC’s review."
Refering to you 3D printer history, most technologies don't take off till the first round of patents expire. I think one reason tech makes such great strides during war time is that all war related patents are ignored or cross licensed to everyone else.
NuScale still had some major challenges, one of the reason they had to pay so much is that they wanted 1 control room to control multiple nuclear reactors. That was partly paid for be the government as it will help others as well.
If you wanted to do anything other then PWR, you basically have to give them a huge amount of money and a design (couple 100M invested to get there) and then they will take a long time (on your cost) and then potentially develop a regulatory framework and then tell you what your design needs to add. So in practice you are gone be down billions and decades before you get something like a molten salt reactor threw approval.
That is why virtually all (at least non DoD) next generation reactors go to Canada to go threw initial deployment. Its hopped that once Canada approves an GenIV reactor other places might be easier to get threw. And thankfully the US is actually looking to Canada and they are considering cross licenses.
Quite a lot, I think. My dad spent his career in the nuclear industry. I don't know exactly how much interaction he had with the NRC, but he did spend several years working in the relicensing group, so I assume it was a lot. The impression I got from my conversations with him was that there was very much an adversarial relationship -- not collaborative.
Grain of salt, n=1, etc.
I spent some time looking at the NRC safety approval of the NuScale design [1]. You look at all those documents published there and realize that they are all necessary. You pick one randomly and open it at a random page, and you don't find superfluous things.
Now, when you have a review that takes millions of man-hours of effort, you'll find cases of irrelevant inquiries. I suspect however that most of these inquires were irrelevant only in hindsight, not because the NRC supervisors were incompetent.
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/nuscale/ser-op...
> small modular reactors (SMRs) are designed to be small enough to build in a factory before being shipped
The AP1000, was supposed to address construction problems by being able to ship in large parts already constructed. But that failed so miserably that SMRs-long ignored because they weren't thought to be economically efficient-became the last ditch effort to build nuclear. And the AP1000 failed because of all the on-site mismanagement of things as simple as concrete pours.
SMRs are unproven in at least two regards: 1) ability to manufacture in a factory economically, and 2) ability to construct all the on-site infrastructure for the SMR to generate the electricity.
There are never certainties in anything except in hindsight. Most people with expertise who have reviewed SMR designs (and there are many) believe there's a high probability of the central manufacturing concept being able to work. Factories are a very well known concept at this point.
I'm a little confused by this, as all existing reactor designs required both the reactor and their infrastructure to be built on-site. I'm not sure why you think it would be an open question to just do the infrastructure.