AI DATA CENTRES MAKE NUCLEAR NECESSARY IN THE ENERGY MIX

Posted on by

This article is adapted from an article by Michael Robinson. He has spent more than four decades as an investigative journalist uncovering the story behind massive tech trends.

A massive energy crisis is here … and it’s all because of artificial intelligence. It is one of the reasons why solar and wind (intermittent renewables) are not adequate for maintaining supply. Nuclear is considered the best option to stabilise the energy mix.

On average, just one new AI data center currently requires the same amount of electricity as 750,000 homes. That’s more than the population of cities like Seattle, Detroit, and Denver.

Nearly 3,000 more of them are on the way. No wonder Tirias Research forecasts that, by 2028, data center power consumption will be 212 times what it was in 2023.

This boom in AI data centers will push America’s power grid to the brink. According to the New York Times, the world is “poised to add the equivalent of Japan’s annual electricity demand to grids each year” over the next decade.

It could bring AI screeching to a halt … Let alone affect regular people as utility bills skyrocket — even as they face planned blackouts to conserve energy … and prolonged outages because of creaky infrastructure.

Fortunately, Meta announced yesterday a request for proposals from nuclear power developers who would help the company add 1 to 4 gigawatts of electricity generating capacity in the U.S. According to Axios, Meta is willing to share costs early in the cycle and will commit to buying power once the reactors are up and running.

The hitch? Applicants have to move fast. Initial proposals are due February 7, 2025, and Meta wants the power plants to begin operation in the early 2030s.

Microsoft has signed a deal with one of the most infamous nuclear power facilities in the US as it looks for more ways to ensure the demand for AI computing is met.

The legacy of the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear plant has long been shaped by the 1979 Unit 2 meltdown, which had a profound effect on public perceptions of nuclear energy. What a lot of people don’t know is that Unit 1 was not only unaffected, but continued to operate safely and reliably for decades.

Now, in a major new step, Constellation has signed its largest power purchase agreement with Microsoft, leading to the planned restoration and restart of TMI Unit 1 under the name Crane Clean Energy Center (CCEC). The project is expected to bring 835 megawatts of carbon-free power to the grid, create 3,400 jobs, and contribute over $3 billion in taxes.

Considering this move in the USA it will be interesting to learn how Microsoft plans to power their new data centers in Australia.

Microsoft will invest A$5 billion ($3.2 billion) in Australia to expand its cloud computing and AI infrastructure over the next two years, in what the US company described as its largest investment in the country in four decades. Announced as part of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s visit to the US this week, the investment will help Microsoft grow its data centers across Canberra, Sydney, and Melbourne by 45% – from 20 sites up to 29.

The following video shows that power constraints are the major problem facing Data Centre growth.

AUSTRALIA: NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY SOLUTION TO OUR ENERGY DILEMMA

Posted on by

Article by Chris Kenny in The Australian, November, 16th 2024.

Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen have long argued that renewable energy is the cheapest form of electricity. However, while tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and investments flow into renewables, prices keep going up. A reckoning must come, and it will be ugly.

Not only is Labor’s plan to reach its net-zero goal by switching the electricity grid to 90 percent renewable energy physically impossible (it has committed to get to 82 percent within 6 years), but the attempt is sending us a broke. At some stage, the facts will break through the delusion.

The unavoidable logic behind firming up a renewable energy grid makes additional costs unavoidable – a renewables grid demands two grids. You need to construct an expansive network of wind and solar generation plants, enough to cover about three times peak demand spread across vastly different microclimates in the hope that wind or sun will be available somewhere when you need it.

On Friday, the Coalition released estimates from Frontier Economics putting the total requited spend for the renewables transition at $642bn – that is $500bn more than Labor has estimated, and about five times what we have already spent. All of this must be recouped with profit, so our power price pain can only ­increase.

The catch with renewables is that they will always require backup, in effect another electricity grid, perhaps using much of the same transmission lines, but capable of generating peak demand without wind or solar. Most likely this backup grid would be powered by gas.

Once we know there is enough backup to supply peak demand, we can understand that the entirety of the renewable asset build is an additional and unnecessary energy cost we have chosen to impose on ourselves. It alienates land, increases complexity, and escalates costs without providing additional power, all so we can meet emissions reduction targets that other countries are not meeting, and which will make no discernible difference to global emissions or, therefore, the climate, anyway.

And whenever gas is needed to firm up the grid, the price the gas generators can charge will determine the cost of electricity. Two grids, a vast and inefficient renewable grid we could well do without, and an effective and reliable fossil-fuel grid are needed to guarantee the energy that underpins our society.

The lies being told on renewables costs have been brilliantly exposed by simple observations and arguments run by entrepreneur Dick Smith in an, until now, private debate with The Guardian Australia. Smith responded after The Guardian ran a piece slamming him for running “ill-informed claims” about renewable energy costs and practicality.

Smith does not contest the need to reduce emissions. His arguments are about whether renewables can power a modern economy and whether nuclear might not be a crucial part of the energy mix. In his letter, Smith says the underestimates from the CSIRO allow it to “falsely claim that renewables with storage is the cheapest form of energy”.

The electronics entrepreneur, adventurer, and environmentalist made a killer observation that exposes the ruse. “No doubt you have noticed all the wind and solar farms that exist around our country,” Smith wrote to The Guardian. “If the CSIRO claim that wind, solar, and storage is the cheapest form of energy is correct, these facilities would include batteries to supply power 24/7 – or at least for five hours. None of them do.”

This connects to a point I have made for a decade or more – instead of subsidising the installation of unreliable renewable energy, we should have made any subsidies or targets contingent on generators firming up their own supplies, either with batteries or dispatchable generation. Smith provides a clear explanation for why this is impossible: “That is, the cost of even limited storage results in solar and wind power being so expensive it is unaffordable.”

Dick Smith has also pointed out that when Broken Hill went dark last month because the main transmission line from Victoria was taken out in a storm, neither the nearby solar factory, wind farm, or big battery were able to keep the Silver City in power. He cites the real-world example of Lord Howe Island where despite a $12m grant for a renewables grid with storage, they have ended up with higher power prices and a reliance on diesel generators for 100 percent of their electricity at times.

This is just the reality. No developed country has even attempted to run on a 90 percent renewables model, and unless there is a watershed development in energy storage no country ever will – so what is Australia playing at?

A clue for a secure, prosperous, and clean energy future comes from our defense force—not the inane net-zero strategy but their plan to run nuclear-propelled ­submarines.

Instead of wasting government subsidies and burdening consumers with the investment costs of unproven renewable models and other “green energy superpowers” hyperbole like green hydrogen and pumped hydro, the time is ripe for nuclear power. It is dense power with a small land footprint that can use existing transmission infrastructure,

Remember the Whyalla wipeout? A decade or more on, it is still on the way with grave doubts about the future of the steelworks, delayed only by taxpayer subsidies and green energy posturing.

A steel manufacturing centre established with the advantage of cheap and reliable coal power is struggling again, as it awaits some kind of “green hydrogen” saviour. Yet a couple of hours up the road is one of the world’s largest uranium mines, and Whyalla and Port Augusta are linked to the national transmission grid because of the now-demolished coal-fired power plants in the region.

A nuclear power station near Port Augusta would buttress power supplies for Whyalla, South Australia and the national grid. Any excess power at times of low demand could be used for desalination or hydrogen production.

It is a much more logical and efficient solution, with proven technology, than our current renewables-plus-storage experiment. The only thing stopping the nuclear option is an honest and truthful appraisal of our options – and the political will.

WIND AND SOLAR IS NOT THE ANSWER: USA GOING TO NUCLEAR

Posted on by

USA is planning to convert closed coal-fired power stations to nuclear. Just as Peter Dutton suggests Australia should do with small modular nuclear reactors as well as new conventional nuclear reactors.

Nuscale Small Modular Nuclear reactor

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today released a report showing that hundreds of U.S. coal power plant sites could convert to nuclear power plant sites, adding new jobs, increasing economic benefit, and significantly improving environmental conditions. This coal-to-nuclear transition could add a substantial amount of clean electricity to the grid, helping the U.S. reach its net-zero emissions goals by 2050. 

The study investigated the benefits and challenges of converting retiring coal plant sites into nuclear plant sites. After screening recently retired and active coal plant sites, the study team identified 157 retired coal plant sites and 237 operating coal plant sites as potential candidates for a coal-to-nuclear transition. Of these sites, the team found that 80% are good candidates to host advanced reactors smaller than the gigawatt scale.  

A coal-to-nuclear transition could significantly improve air quality in communities around the country. The case study found that greenhouse gas emissions in a region could fall by 86% when nuclear power plants replace large coal plants, which is equivalent to taking more than 500,000 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles off the roads.  

It could also increase employment and economic activity within those communities. When a large coal plant is replaced by a nuclear power plant of equivalent size, the study found that jobs in the region could increase by more than 650 permanent positions. Based on the case study in the report, long-term job impacts could lead to additional annual economic activity of $275 million, implying an increase of 92% in tax revenue for the local county when compared to the operating coal power. 

“This is an important opportunity to help communities around the country preserve jobs, increase tax revenue, and improve air quality,” said Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dr. Kathryn Huff. “As we move to a clean energy future, we need to deliver place-based solutions and ensure an equitable energy transition that does not leave communities behind.” 

The reuse of coal infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactors could also reduce costs for developing new nuclear technology, saving from 15% to 35% in construction costs. Coal-to-nuclear transitions could save millions of dollars by reusing the coal plant’s electrical equipment (e.g., transmission lines, switchyards), cooling ponds or towers, and civil infrastructure such as roads and office buildings.  

Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted the study, sponsored by the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy. 

Read the full report here.

CHINA LEADS THE WAY WITH NEW NUCLEAR PROJECTS

Posted on by

According to Bloomberg, China has more nuclear reactors under construction than any other country, having approved a dozen in each of the past two years. The nation is on track to become the world’s largest producer of nuclear energy by 2030, overtaking France and the United States. Moreover, it was the first country to connect a small modular nuclear reactor to its grid in the Shandong province.

The EAST fusion-research tokamak at the Chinese Academy of Science’s Institute of Plasma Physics (ASIPP) in Hefei, China.

China has approved five new nuclear power projects, adding 11 reactors with an estimated investment of 220 billion yuan ($30.79 billion), marking a new record in the country’s atomic energy expansion. The decision was taken at an executive meeting of the State Council, presided over by Premier Li Qiang on Monday, the state-run Xinhua news agency said. State-controlled Chinese business news outlet Jiemian said the reactors will be constructed across the provinces of Jiangsu, Shandong, Guangdong, Zhejiang, and Guangxi.

Jiemian estimates are based on the average cost of 20 billion yuan ($2.8 billion) per reactor. Typically, China completes such projects within five years of approval. Six of the reactors will be managed by subsidiaries of the state-owned China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), with several expected to be third-generation Hualong One reactors.

The China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) will build three more reactors, while the State Power Investment Corporation (SPIC) will oversee the construction of two others. Both CNNC and SPIC are also publicly owned. Notably, the Xuwei project in Jiangsu, operated by CNNC, will include a fourth-generation gas-cooled reactor designed to supply both heat and electricity, featuring enhanced safety measures.

China connected its first commercial onshore small modular nuclear reactor to its power grid, making it the first country in the world to draw power from such a machine, a report from Bloomberg reveals. China Huaneng Group Co.‘s 200-megawatt unit 1 reactor at Shidao Bay is connected to the grid in the Shandong province.

As part of its energy security and emissions reduction strategy, China is heavily investing in nuclear power alongside renewable sources like wind and solar. Beijing aims to double nuclear energy’s share of the national energy mix from 5 percent to 10 percent by 2035. Dutton is correct in including it in Australia’s energy mix.

THE AI-SPARKED NUCLEAR REVIVAL

Posted on by

The data centers that power AI technologies require such prodigious – and reliable – volumes of electricity, that tech giants like Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) “rediscovered” nuclear power as an ideal energy source.

Microsoft and Constellation Energy, the utility that owns Three Mile Island, announced a new deal on September 20th that will lead to the restart of Unit 1 at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station. This will be the first time a nuclear reactor in the United States has been brought back online after being shut down. 

The deal is for 20 years and is a power purchase agreement in which Microsoft will buy the power generated by Unit 1 for an estimated $110-$115 per megawatt hour in order to reliably power its Artificial Intelligence (AI) data center demand while meeting the companies clean energy goals. Unit one will reopen as the “Crane Clean Energy Center” by 2028 so long as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves the plan.

Amazon Web Services is paying as much as $650 million for a data center campus adjacent to a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. The cloud provider reportedly plans to build several data centers there, according to The Information. 

The recent Amazon and Microsoft nuclear deals are not outliers. Earlier this month, Oracle Corp. (ORCL) Chairman and Co-founder Larry Ellison announced that his company had obtained “building permits for three nuclear reactors. These are small modular nuclear reactors to power the data center.

Along with this surprising announcement, Ellison also mentioned that some of the newest data centers under construction will require ten times more power than the typical facilities in operation today. Oracle, he said, is building an 800-megawatt data center that will have “acres of Nvidia GPU clusters” that will be used to train one of the world’s largest AI models.

For perspective, 800 MW is nearly identical to the entire power supply that Microsoft expects the Three Mile Island plant to produce once it reopens. In other words, one modern data center will need the entire output of one nuclear reactor.

In many important respects, nuclear energy has no equal, especially when it comes to powering data centers. Electricity that is intermittent, or susceptible to interruption, is electricity that could cause a big, expensive mess for data centers. Nukes prevent that problem. They can run continuously for long periods of time without needing maintenance or refueling.

Importantly, nukes also require a relatively small footprint, compared to renewable energy sources. Theoretically, a square plot of land, 22 miles long on each side, could accommodate enough nuclear reactors to power the entire United States.

Looks like Dutton may be onto a winner by bringing Nuclear Energy into our Power Mix. Because of the need for lots of land, batteries, digitalisation, and new infrastructure (grid upgrade and expansion) with wind, and solar the renewables option is more expensive and less reliable than Nuclear.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/09/20/constellation-energy-reopens-three-mile-island-nuclear-power-plant-in-agreement-with-microsoft.html

LATEST ON SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR REACTORS

Posted on by

There are already SMRs deployed and operating in China and Russia, as well as one test reactor in Japan.
Other first-of-a-kind SMRs are expected to be built this decade, followed by accelerated deployment worldwide during the 2030s, particularly as a source of reliable, low-carbon power generation and heat for hard-to-abate sectors. This includes notably the use of SMRs for on-grid baseload power to replace coal-fired generation, though market demand for SMRs continues to grow for other applications as well. The most promising include off-grid heat and power to replace diesel generators in remote regions for mining operations, fossil-fuel replacement for district heating, and high-temperature heat to replace fossil-fuel cogeneration in heavy industries. Other applications include replacing fossil fuels in cogeneration for ammonia and potash production for the fertiliser industry; hydrogen production for synthetic fuels and clean steel production; as well as marine propulsion to replace heavy-fuel oil for merchant shipping.

SMRs are driving innovation in the nuclear sector
The sector is witnessing significant innovation internationally. This includes SMRs at various stages of
development, from fundamental research on new concepts to commercial deployment and operation.
The innovation pipeline includes a range of reactor concepts – from incremental innovation in existing light water reactor technologies to breakthroughs in advanced Generation IV reactor concepts. It also includes SMRs in a variety of configurations – with land-based, multi-module, marine-based and transportable designs. These innovations incorporate new materials, a range of coolants, and, in some cases, innovative fuels. This is in turn expected to lead to the deployment of a range of SMRs of different sizes, with a range of outlet temperatures, and new attributes.

Nuclear energy supplies approximately 10% of the world’s electricity from 412 nuclear power
reactors in operation, providing 370 gigawatts of capacity. It is the largest source of non-emitting
electricity generation in OECD countries and the second largest source worldwide after hydropower.

The role of nuclear energy in meeting these pathways was emphasized at the 28th Conference of the
Parties (COP28) in Dubai on 2 December 2013 when the leaders of over 20 countries committed to
tripling global installed nuclear capacity by 2050, recognizing the critical role of nuclear energy in
achieving global net zero greenhouse gas emissions and keeping within reach the goal of limiting
the temperature rise to 1.5°C.

This commitment builds on NEA analysis that concluded in 2022 that to meet climate goals consistent with a 1.5°C scenario, global installed nuclear capacity needs to triple to 1 160 gigawatts by 2050 (NEA, 2022).

ADOPTION OF SMALL MODULAR REACTORS

Posted on by

Britain’s new Labour government has said small nuclear plants will play an important role in helping the country meet its net-zero targets.

Britain’s Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) said the Rolls-Royce SMR 470 megawatt (MW) Small Modular Reactor (SMR) design had completed stage two of its three-step generic design assessment (GDA) – the formal process for approving a new reactor.

“The team will move directly into Step 3 of this rigorous independent assessment of our technology – ideally positioning us to deliver low-carbon nuclear power and support the UK transition to net zero,” said Helena Perry, Rolls-Royce SMR’s Safety and Regulatory Affairs Director.

The overall duration for the Rolls-Royce SMR GDA is expected to be 53 months, reaching completion in August 2026.

A unique approach

According to Paul Stein, Chairman of Rolls-Royce SMR, “The UK SMR heralds a new approach to the cost of nuclear power by broadly rethinking the manufacturing and construction methods and by the extensive use of digital twinning, keeping the physics package exactly the same. The SMR uses a pressurised water reactor, a type we know and love.”

The production will utilize commercially available, off-the-shelf components from within the UK supply chain, injecting revenue into the British economy and avoiding high-risk, complex construction principles.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

The second volume of The NEA Small Modular Reactor Dashboard is another milestone in the ongoing efforts of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) to comprehensively assess the progress toward commercializing and deploying SMR technologies. It is important to note that the present publication is not an update to the complement of reactors assessed in Volume I. Instead, the work extends the same methodology to a further 21 SMR designs worldwide to evaluate their progress toward commercialization and deployment as of 21 April 2023.

Australia is a member of the OECD and has access to the publications of its Nuclear Energy Agency on SMR’s and would be aware that the widespread use of SMRs is underway.

Notable public announcements, even in the intervening months since NEA published Volume I in March 2023, now reflect technology choices and plans by chemical manufacturers, oil companies, and copper mine owners. Market signals suggest that this trend will only continue to accelerate as awareness grows about the potential for SMRs to provide alternatives to fossil fuels for both power and non-power industrial applications.

Nuclear Energy allows us to use the existing transmission lines and infrastructure, which is extremely important in Australia with a widely distributed, small population in a large country. The proposal submitted by the Liberal Party for replacing cold fire power stations with SMRs and larger-scale nuclear reactors utilizes the existing transmission lines so is a cost-efficient option.

Wind and Solar in remote locations means a whole new transmission infrastructure to get the power to where it is needed. Moreover, they only work when the wind blows and the sun shines, so the power output is unreliable.

Blocking nuclear is a major setback for Australia’s industrial sector. In the past with our own coal and natural gas Australia provided industry with comparatively cheap energy that will change dramatically without nuclear. Also, Australia has the world’s largest economic demonstrated resources of uranium. In 2021, it was the world’s 4th largest uranium producer. However, Australia has only one commercial nuclear power plant therefore, it has limited domestic uranium requirements. It has and will continue to provide excellent export income.

ALBANESE HAS BEEN WARNED BY DR ADRIAN PATERSON: HE SAYS, NUCLEAR WILL PROVIDE THE LOWEST ENERGY COST

Posted on by

Why is Dr Adrian Paterson, the former chief executive of the Australian Nuclear ­Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), which operates the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney being ignored.

Dr Paterson has written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese demanding urgent action to keep the nation’s lights on.

Paterson asks: “Why are we as a modern democracy banning nuclear at the federal and state level when low-carbon nuclear provides the cheapest consumer costs? Nuclear would transform an electricity grid which is getting … less reliable plus getting very, very expensive.

“Your electricity plan, for a massive expansion of the grid with wind and solar sources is deeply flawed and expensive. It will fail to deliver quality, 24-hour electricity,” Dr Paterson warned.

Dr Paterson said nuclear energy production stands apart from wind and solar because it doesn’t require a “massive expansion” of the grid – the cost of which would easily fund the first nuclear power plants.

Regarding a CSIRO report that claims nuclear will be too expensive, Paterson says: “CSIRO has no expertise in the cost of generation.

“What they do is take publicly available figures of the construction costs of nuclear power plants – usually in countries that have got regulatory environments that are kind of designed to stop nuclear – and convert them into a generation cost using an algorithm which is provided to them by a private sector firm that is not an expert in the nuclear industry,” he says.

“I’ve engaged the CSIRO for several years both directly and also through the press to say that we can work together to sort this out and they have no inclination to do it. People don’t know that to build all of the planned solar panels and wind turbines we’re going to have to double the size of the grid, which is 40 percent of electricity bills.

“The eastern grid in Australia is the most complex machine in the southern hemisphere. The policy of this government is to make it twice as big as it is and twice as complex if you have to integrate intermittent sources into it.

“How do people believe that we can create a grid that’s double the size with lower energy density and still have the current quality of life?

“The current policy is based on a failure to get proper engineers in the room. Engineers are being banned from giving talks as we speak,” Paterson says.

Commenting on his letter to the PM, Dr Paterson said Australians should be given a choice in how their electricity is generated.

“We shouldn’t be making decisions based on the personal preference of Anthony Albanese. This ‘Captain’s Pick’ mindset is stuck in the 80s when he was an antinuclear campaigner at Sydney University.

“It’s time Australia had the option to join the rest of the world, who are already using nuclear to stabilise the grid and power their economies.

“Why should Australia miss out on cheap, clean fuel? Why should Australians pay more to keep the lights on at home? Why not keep businesses doors open and unemployment low?”

Dr Paterson served as chief executive of ANSTO for 12 years, has degrees in chemistry and engineering, sits on the board of HB11 Energy, a company developing laser hydrogen fusion technology, and is now the principal and founder of energy advisory Siyeva Consulting.

CHINA’S NEW THORIUM NUCLEAR REACTORS CHANGE EVERYTHING!

Posted on by

In August 2021, China announced the completion of its first experimental thorium-based nuclear reactor. Built in the middle of the Gobi Desert in the country’s north, the reactor is undergoing testing. If the experiment proves successful, Beijing plans to construct another reactor potentially capable of generating electricity for more than 100 000 homes.  

China is not alone in its intentions to reap thorium’s unique properties. In the past, India, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and other countries have demonstrated enthusiasm for research into the possible application of thorium in nuclear power.

What can thorium offer?

Thorium boasts several advantages over the conventional nuclear fuel, uranium-235. Thorium can generate more fissile material (uranium-233) than it consumes while fuelling a water-cooled or molten-salt reactor. According to estimates, the Earth’s upper crust contains an average of 10.5 parts per million (ppm) of thorium, compared with about 3 ppm of uranium.

“Because of its abundance and its fissile material breeding capability, thorium could potentially offer a long-term solution to humanity’s energy needs,” Kailash Agarwal, a Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities Specialist at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said.

Another advantage is that thorium-fuelled reactors could be much more environmentally friendly than their uranium counterparts. In addition these reactors — and nuclear power in general — do not emit greenhouse gases in operation, they also produce less long-lived nuclear waste than present-day uranium-fuelled reactors. 

Not without challenges

However, several economic and technical obstacles make the deployment of thorium challenging. Despite its abundance, the metal is currently expensive to extract. 

 Maritime / China Unveils Plans For ‘Largest Ever’ Container Ship, Powered By Thorium Reactor

January 2024 Report: Jiangnan Shipyard, a division of state-owned China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), said the KUN-24AP, featuring a thorium-based Generation IV molten salt reactor, would prove safer and more efficient than the uranium reactors currently used to power warships.

China has an abundant supply of thorium meaning that it could be a cost-effective low-carbon alternative for shipping and other industries.

UK GOING AHEAD WITH SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR REACTORS

Posted on by

X-energy, working in partnership with Cavendish Nuclear, is planning a fleet of up to 40 of its advanced small modular Xe-100 power reactors in the UK, creating thousands of high-quality jobs in construction and operations. X-energy is also proposing to develop a £multi-billion 12-reactor plant at Hartlepool, to be ready by the early 2030s.

X-energy’s intrinsically safe advanced small modular reactor (“SMR”) and TRISO-X fuel greatly expand applications and markets for deployment of nuclear technology relative to other SMRs and conventional nuclear. Its high-temperature gas reactor (“HTGR”) technology can support broad industrial use applications through its high-temperature heat and steam output. In addition, it can integrate into and address the needs of both large and regional electricity systems through more efficient load ramping and can support intermittent renewable (solar and wind) and other clean energy options with reliable baseload generation.

“This is a huge opportunity for Teesside and the country as a whole.  There is a skilled nuclear workforce, with decades of experience of high temperature gas reactor technology, already in place at Hartlepool Power Station and the plant will be reaching the end of its life just as our project entered development and construction,” said Carol Tansley, X-energy’s Vice President of UK New Build Projects. “We can provide high quality local jobs and the broadest range of decarbonisation options for the area’s industrial base, and then use that experience to benefit similar regions across the UK.”

“Nuclear energy offers a major boost to industrial clusters seeking to rapidly reduce emissions and improve competitiveness by providing stable, local, low-carbon energy with long-term price certainty,” said Dr. Philip Rogers, Director at Equilibrion. “The opportunities on Teesside are clear, and with another five large industrial clusters around England and Wales, the potential national socio-economic benefits are huge, enabling long-term, economy-wide decarbonisation of transport and industry.”

Electricity use is responsible for less than a quarter of the UK’s annual carbon dioxide emissions, whereas demand from heat and transport represent more than twice the amount. 

X-energy already has a project underway on the U.S. Gulf Coast which will produce high-temperature heat and power for the Seadrift, Texas, manufacturing facility of the materials science company Dow. Construction on X-energy’s four-reactor project in Texas is expected to begin in 2026 and to be completed by the end of this decade.  The project is focused on providing the Seadrift site with safe, reliable, zero carbon emissions power and steam.

Surely the Australian government is aware of these developments and if so why are they not considering nuclear as part of our energy supply?