Off the Siberian coast, not far from Alaska, a Russian ship has been docked at port for four years. The Akademik Lomonosov, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, sends energy to around 200,000 people on land using next-wave nuclear technology: small modular reactors.

This technology is also being used below sea level. Dozens of US submarines lurking in the depths of the world’s oceans are propelled by SMRs, as the compact reactors are known.

SMRs — which are smaller and less costly to build than traditional, large-scale reactors — are fast becoming the next great hope for a nuclear renaissance as the world scrambles to cut fossil fuels. And the US, Russia and China are battling for dominance to build and sell them.

  • tunetardis
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’ve been following the situation in Canada. Afaik the closest we are to getting SMRs is a plan to supplement power production at the Darlington, Ontario CANDU plant using SMRs of the GE Hitachi design. The utility is seeking regulatory approval on the first of 4, but they haven’t broken ground yet to the best of my knowledge. Each would put out up to 300 Mw, so I guess the completed project would add 1.2 Gw to the grid.

    Ontario gets around half its power from nuclear, and the current provincial government is gung-ho on building more capacity. While I am not opposed to the idea (they would need to build more anyway just to maintain that ratio in coming decades), the fact that it comes at the heels of them cancelling nearly every renewable energy project at the beginning of their term adds a sour note. These included those that were actually under construction, and tax money had to foot the bill on broken contracts. It was flabbergasting. I am cautiously optimistic about SMRs but they are still vapourware for the most part at this time.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      It’s a known tactic of the fossil fuel industry (and the politicians they own) to push SMRs as a delay tactic, so they can continue to make money from coal and gas for a bit longer. And conservative parties get to play culture war over it, which we know they love to do.

      If something real comes out of it then great, but you can’t plan an energy transition based on a technology that isn’t proven yet.

      • tunetardis
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Oh man, that is just depressing. I mean I wouldn’t put it past them. It’s like this whole business with carbon capture.

        A couple of years ago, I was driving around the Permian Basin near Midland, Texas. I asked a local about all these gas flares you’d see. He said it’s waste natural gas. They’re drilling for oil, you see, so they just burn it off. When I looked incredulous, he added that it’s better than simply venting it. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas! Well sure, but…

        Let’s just say it would take a lot to convince me at this point that the future is carbon capture.

        • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s absolutely what’s going on here. the whole “nuclear renaissance” is nothing but a smoke screen.

          • Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah unless it’s we all suddenly rush to build them and all the renewable options for padding the grid then, yeah. It’s just a ruse to make it look like we are doing anything at all to make people feel better about flying private jets for a day trip to their favorite fishing pond. (Something I know a millionaire does personally)

        • vividspecter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s like this whole business with carbon capture.

          Yep, it’s very similar to the CCS push from the 2000s. And you saw the Democratic party pushing it too, despite it fast becoming obvious that it’s not viable.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      That just shows that nuclear is nothing but a smokescreen for perpetuating fossil fuels. First they cancel the renewable projects because they have all those fancy new nukes now. Then the nukes never pan out (as they do). Oh shucks, guess we have to keep using coal.

      • Rentlar
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        That’s not quite accurate. All the coal power plants in Ontario were shut down about 5-ish years before. Then they had planned more renewable capacity. Then a new leader of the province came in to power (the brother of a famous crackhead mayor), spent money to cancel the projects not with anything to do with nuclear but out of spite of the previous Liberal government.

        Second, you look to Germany whose nuclear power plants were shut down which forced them to reopen coal power plants. Yes renewables are coming in hot and it’s the future, but don’t get the timeline twisted just to shift blame on nuclear, especially in my native Ontario.

        Indeed yes, the idea of using these technologies to distract from other green energies is a valid concern, but I’ll say that until we have fusion (that is always 20 years away from reality) it takes all kinds of green energy sources to transition.