Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: Catwell
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 1027 views
  • Likes 7 likes
  • Comments 4 comments
Related
Recommended

Rolls-Royve plans to build SMRs in the UK, replacing nuclear plants by 2029

Catwell

image

Roll Royce’s small modular reactors could provide energy for the UK, replacing traditional nuclear plants by 2029. (Image Credit: Rolls-Royce)

 

Rolls-Royce is well known around the globe for developing aviation, shipping, automobiles, and land power applications. The company is now leading a consortium to construct and install small modular reactors (SMRs) on former nuclear sites. These SMRs will run on nuclear power and will be 1.5 acres in size in the middle of a 10-acre piece of land. Their goal is to use the SMRs to power the UK by 2029, while providing an affordable energy solution with a smaller carbon footprint.

 

There will be between 10 to 15 stations set to be built in the UK, either in Wales or Cumbria, with each reactor producing 440MWe.One of the former sites has a delayed nuclear project, while the other has a nuclear plant that’s no longer in service. As it stands now, 600 MWe of electricity is produced at the two plants stationed in the Dungeness B plant in Kent. The 440MWe is enough to power a Leeds-sized city, charge 88 million smartphones, light 40 million bulbs, operate eight million large TVs and charge 62,857 electric cars.

 

Inside the SMRs, a pressurized water reactor is confined with safety layers that are smaller in volume than the reactor space found in today’s nuclear plants. The reactor is aligned vertically, allowing hot and cold water to be moved around by gravity. The company's approach to SMRs was inspired by how modular manufacturing can save resources and money, making the forefront of nuclear power a reliable option. The final few nuclear plants in the U.K. will be completely shut down by 2030.

 

Relying on portable power plants will allow manufacturers to be able to standardize both the cost of the reactors and the cost of energy they produce.

 

Nearly everything in an SMR is an improvement over standard nuclear plants. Compared to a bigger project, constructing many small reactors at the same time is less costly. “Built-in one location, the elements of an SMR can be shipped oversea or by rail or road and assembled on-site, with a predictable programme from first concrete to commissioning in just four years, including 500 days on-site for the modular build.” Rolls Royce said.

 

Construction times for traditional power plants in the U.K. ranged from 8 to nearly 20 years. It could take half the time time to construct the nuclear reactors from Rolls Royce, an estimate of just 4 years to build the nuclear reactors.

 

Have a story tip? Message me at: cabe(at)element14(dot)com

http://twitter.com/Cabe_Atwell

  • This is a fluff piece. Basically a press release turned into a news story. Importantly, no specifics about cost are mentioned. Just that it will be cheaper because they are modular.  Worth pointing out that Westinghouse (baddest reactor maker in the world) went bankrupt perusing modularity.  No SMR has come close to conventional reactor cost per kWh.  And conventional nuclear is crazy expensive compared to either renewables or fossil fuel.

     

    There is no new technology in SMR, and for 5 decades the conventional wisdom is bigger reactors lead to economies of scale.  SMRs exist as a last ditch effort to save reactor construction companies for their military capacity.

     

    They don’t solve the problems of waste, liability, proliferation, accidents and terrorist targets.  But we don’t need to get to this part of the list of problems until they make sense financially, which they do not.

  • Looks an interesting idea. Hopefully a working example is going to be produced in the not too distant future.

     

    Dubbie

  • Ahh Rolls-Royve and Roll Royce ... the Chinese cousins of Rolls-Royce!

     

    - Gough

  • For information on the plant is available from the Rolls Royce website for anyone that is interested;

     

    Rolls Royce SMR plant

     

    A 60 year nominal life is interesting, I am working on plants 25 - 30 years old that have had to go through protection and control system upgrades to combat obsolescence, fine for lower risk coal / gas facilities but much more onerous to do on a nuclear facility.

     

    I wonder what the staffing requirements will be as well?