Slashdot Mirror


Setback For Small Nuclear Reactors: B&W Cuts mPower Funding

mdsolar (1045926) writes with news that funding for the mPower, a Small Modular [Nuclear] Reactor, has been cut due to the inability to find investors interested in building a prototype. From the article: "The pullback represents a major blow to the development of SMRs, which have been hailed as the next step forward for the nuclear power industry. ... All told, B&W, the DOE, and partners have spent around $400 million on the mPower program. Another $600 million was needed just to get the technology ready for application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for licensing. ... B&W plans to continue low-level R&D on the mPower technology with a view to commercial deployment in the mid-2020s, said CEO James Ferland. But without a major shift in the business environment and in investor perceptions of the risks and rewards associated with nuclear power, that seems fanciful."

9 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I have a project by macpacheco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So you hate nuclear power and have no interest in properly learning about it, instead taking your knowledge from Hollywood sensationalization of radioactivity and nuclear power. We find those by the bucket nowadays. The difference is most don't dare speak, because the aren't sure. Those that actually think they got it right are the most dangerous.
    Here is a source for serious information on nuclear power, without any BS:
      https://class.coursera.org/nuc...

  2. Re:Nuclear proliferation is a bitch ain't it by macpacheco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It has something to do with public negative perception about nuclear power, but it isn't the real driving force. The reason the NRC has become itself anti nuclear is far more related to the millions US politicians gets from fossil fuel lobbies instead. Too many presidents have appointed people to the NRC that are committed to making nuclear power as expensive as possible. Plus it's not like the FAA is much better, I heard a saying that summarizes the FAA pretty darn well "We're not happy until you're unhappy", the NRC is far worse.

  3. Re:Molten Salt's coming. by mbkennel · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Because there are engineering designs for pressurized water reactors which work and decades of experience making them, and molten-salt cycle reactors intrinsically dissolve large amounts of high-level waste in a liquid in normal operation---(water soluble too sometimes)---and make every nuclear plant also a horrifyingly nasty radioactive reprocessing plant.

    I'm for fission (not because it's great but because coal and global warming are much worse), but I like my megacuries encased in zirconium, and very solid.

  4. Re:I have a project by Boronx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fukushima was a nuclear disaster. Even if you want to write off anything that happens because of Ma Nature, that doesn't matter since good management post-tsunami could have easily prevented the melt-down and massive release.

    I'm sympathetic to the nuclear industry, but industry proponents really need to get a grip. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were operated by morons. That just can't happen. It should never happen. There are plenty of smart folk, do what it takes to make sure one of them is in charge the next time a tsunami hits. Follow the damn regulations root out corruption. Bluster and sticking your head in the sand just isn't going to cut it anymore.

  5. Re:Molten Salt's coming. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't see why anyone would spend another dime on a pressurized water reactor again.

    Because so far no-one has managed to demonstrate a successful commercial scale thorium reactor. All the research ones have run into severe problems. There are still many technical problems to be solved, which will require a lot of money. The only people willing to take on that kind of risk are governments looking to build a nuclear industry and research base from scratch, i.e. China and India.

    Even if China or India do demonstrate a working design don't expect to see it in the US any time soon. One of the biggest problems is decommissioning a highly contaminated reactor at the end of its life, and so far it looks like they are saying they will figure that out "later". Good luck getting that past any other country's regulator.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  6. Re:KickStarter? by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish Slashdotters wouldn't use the word "ponzi scheme" to mean "thing I don't like". It's got a very specific, very informative meaning that's being casually eroded out of laziness.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  7. Re:I have a project by AlterEager · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Alone the thyroid treated children in germany are already far over 10,000.

    Given that the thyroid cancer rate in the US (for example) seems to be about 13 per 100,000 people year and the population of Germany is about 81 million we'd expect about 10,530 thyroid cancer cases in Germany per year.

    So 10,000 cases in children since 1986 is pretty damn low.

  8. Re:Molten Salt's coming. by AlterEager · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't see why anyone would spend another dime on a pressurized water reactor again.

    Because so far no-one has managed to demonstrate a successful commercial scale thorium reactor.

    Lots of people seem to think that all thorium reactors are molten salt.

    No.

    People are planning/have already tried burning Thorium in:

    Pebble bed reactors
    CANDU
    Sodium cooled breeders
    PWR's
    BWR's
    Accelerator driven reactors...

  9. Too Little, Too Late by JabrTheHut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they think there will be any need for this by the mid-2020s, they're in for a rude awakening and a nasty financial loss.

    Solar panels have dropped in price by 65% in the last two years. They're expecting another 60% price drop by 2020, and efficiency isn't being sacrificed - it's only getting better, with 25% being achieved in the lab now. Research is also much cheaper - researchers ask for grants such as $5 million or $15 million, not the $1 billion mentioned in the article.

    Combine wind farms, hydro power, solar thermal, and the recent improvements with storing energy, both as potential energy and in batteries, and I doubt any one will want to invest in "small" nuclear reactors, either now or 10 years from now. Solar panels aren't the fix for everything, but they will make it uneconomical to put in place big, expensive nuclear reactors, which are only small and cheap by comparison to even bigger ones.

    --
    Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.