I don't think that the footprint is the key factor. Likely the total construction cost is. A large reactor may have a better cost per kWh, averaged over decades of its lifetime, but a smaller reactor likely has a more affordable upfront cost.
From thier website: "The BWRX-300 power block is small enough to fit within two international football pitches."
And after some digging, the core alone is 4.2m INNER diameter and over 27m tall. That is smaller than average but this is a far cry from the sales pitch of reactor modules being mass produced in a factory to be delivered to site by truck.
The label SMR applies to a wide range of reactors.
The BWRX-300 is at the upper end of that range and I don't think claims of factory-production of the whole unit were ever made for this reactor.
That said, even the much larger AP-1000 had fairly large modules made in a factory. In fact as far as I understand that was one of the problems with the Vogtle builds, because doing that only really makes sense for a larger number of units, not for just two unites.
How certain are you of your prediction? What odds would you give me if I bet against you?
10:1?
100:1?
Background:
The BWRX predecessor, the ABWR, holds the record for the fastest construction time of a commercial nuclear power plant ever: just slightly over 3 years to first criticality, 4 years total to commercial operation.
Fun fact: it was the success of this first Gen III reactor that caused EDF to predict the EPRs would also only take 3 years to build. Which proved...optimistic. For the EPR. But proven for the ABWR.
The point of small modular reactors is not the cost of the first one, but that the cost goes down with each subsequent one. The cost of the first one is expected to be high. IMHO this is very well explained in "How Big Things Get Done" by Bent Flyvbjerg.
This is a 10th Generation Boiling Water Reactor. Here's some relevant links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300
https://www.gevernova.com/nuclear/carbon-free-power/bwrx-300...
Interesting point: no pumps; convection flow for 100% of the operational envelope.
The BWRX-300 footprint is so large they might as well just build large nuclear power units again and get 3-4x the power
I don't think that the footprint is the key factor. Likely the total construction cost is. A large reactor may have a better cost per kWh, averaged over decades of its lifetime, but a smaller reactor likely has a more affordable upfront cost.
Land is very cheap compared to how much normal reactors cost to build.
From thier website: "The BWRX-300 power block is small enough to fit within two international football pitches."
And after some digging, the core alone is 4.2m INNER diameter and over 27m tall. That is smaller than average but this is a far cry from the sales pitch of reactor modules being mass produced in a factory to be delivered to site by truck.
https://www.gevernova.com/content/dam/gevernova-nuclear/glob...
The label SMR applies to a wide range of reactors.
The BWRX-300 is at the upper end of that range and I don't think claims of factory-production of the whole unit were ever made for this reactor.
That said, even the much larger AP-1000 had fairly large modules made in a factory. In fact as far as I understand that was one of the problems with the Vogtle builds, because doing that only really makes sense for a larger number of units, not for just two unites.
Place your bets now.
Time until first power generated, and actual final total cost.
I’ll go 15 years and $10 Billion.
How certain are you of your prediction? What odds would you give me if I bet against you?
10:1?
100:1?
Background:
The BWRX predecessor, the ABWR, holds the record for the fastest construction time of a commercial nuclear power plant ever: just slightly over 3 years to first criticality, 4 years total to commercial operation.
Fun fact: it was the success of this first Gen III reactor that caused EDF to predict the EPRs would also only take 3 years to build. Which proved...optimistic. For the EPR. But proven for the ABWR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_boiling_water_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Pow...
https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-ti...
The BWRX is also passively safe: cooling occurs via natural circulation, no pumps needed.
So if it takes 15 years I give you $100, if it takes less you give me $10000?
Deal?
The point of small modular reactors is not the cost of the first one, but that the cost goes down with each subsequent one. The cost of the first one is expected to be high. IMHO this is very well explained in "How Big Things Get Done" by Bent Flyvbjerg.
Profitable power or just power?
If the former: it might never happen.