peterschreiber. media
And Lord, we are especially grateful for nuclear power, the cleanest and safest source of energy available. Except for solar energy, which is a chimera.
– Homer Simpson (in “Bart vs. Thanksgiving” written by George Meyer)
The world will continue to ask for more power because of a developing population that also strives to maintain its popular lifestyle. Meanwhile, recent geopolitical events have highlighted the need to ensure that such very important power is provided locally or through close allies.
The nuclear force scares a lot of people. However, the fact is that it has provided much of the planet’s desires for overall strength over the past six decades and has caused far fewer deaths, either directly or indirectly, than fossil fuels. Although the nuclear force has a higher protection record and has the highest force density. Of all other fuels, it has also been expensive due to regulations and has been subject to large cost overruns and allocation delays. Other demanding situations revolve around the safety and security of the production, shipment and storage of radioactive materials. Despite these demanding situations, many countries are adding small modular reactors (“SMRs”) to their strength mix.
Among the many corporations approaching the SMR generation, NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR) has taken a leadership position in the generation progression and regulatory approval process. That said, the company is still in its infancy and has yet to prove it can supply safe and competitive power in one of the most regulated industries on the planet.
The overall global population is expected to continue growing for several decades, even as birth rates fall and the rate of expansion moderates. Along with population expansion, emerging GDP consistent with capital leads to an ever-increasing demand for power as living standards rise.
datacatalog. worldbank. org data
Meeting this developing call will require a combination of energy sources, with their benefits and disadvantages. The good news is that renewables like wind and sun will likely grow faster. the consumption of fossil fuels, but only to slow their growth. The U. S. Energy Information Administration’s International Energy Outlook 2021The U. S. government projects that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions will accumulate through 2050.
U. S. Energy Information Administration
Even worse news is that even if they don’t and carbon dioxide emissions begin to decline, the addition of new greenhouse gases to the environment will mean global temperatures will continue to rise for decades. In fact, the earth’s crust takes many years to recover. Reabsorb the year’s emissions:
In short, only after a few decades of reducing CO2 emissions would global temperatures obviously begin to stabilize. In contrast, short-term discounts on CO2 emissions, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have no detectable effects on CO2 concentration or global temperature. Only emissions discounts sustained over decades would have a widespread effect on the entire weather system.
– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Sixth Assessment Report
In the e-book Factfulness (Hans Rosling, with Anna Rosling Ronnlund and Ola Rosling, 2018), the authors argue that most people act on misinformed notions of the real state of the world. They propose as an explanation for this habit that other people act instinctively and without the wisdom of real facts in many situations.
Mention nuclear reactors to almost every adult and they are likely to mention the three biggest nuclear power plant accidents: Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011).
The Three Mile Island incident was the biggest twist of the fate of a serious nuclear power plant in the United States, yet there were no deaths, either directly or through radiation emissions. Extensive testing and monitoring has been conducted through government agencies, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and independent teams. He revealed that a radiation dose of only about 1 millirem (MREM) on average was experienced by the other 2 million people in the region. In comparison, the average annual herbal background radiation is three hundred mrem. Brazil nuts can accumulate this through 10 mrem because potassium-40 is radioactive. In fact, the incident scared other people enough to lead to stricter regulations and practices in the industry, which in the end made nuclear plants safer.
The Chernothroughl crisis was the first of two nuclear twists of fate rated at 7 (the most severe level) on the International Nuclear Event Scale. The twist of fate occurred during a failed check of the ability of the plant’s steam turbine to pump cooling water on the occasion of a forced failure of the network to which the plant was connected. The week-long core meltdown, explosion and fires released massive amounts of radioactive blankets across the Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and other parts of Europe. The death toll resulting from the crisis is a matter of highly questionable counts. About 30 staff members died from the explosion and strong radiation. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) put the total at 45, 15 of whom died of thyroid cancer. Estimates of deaths from the long-term effects of radiation exposure are all over the place. Anti-nuclear teams like Greenpeace estimate the death toll to be over 200,000, while the International Atomic Energy Agency puts the death toll at more than 4,000. Most reports also speak of other long-term physical, emotional, and socioeconomic effects of direct exposure and the resulting mass evacuations. Whatever numbers you think are the most accurate, there is no question that Chernothroughl was a truly horrible crisis. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the attacks on Chernothroughl and other power plants have once again highlighted the danger of bombing reactors or cutting power to cooling pumps.
The other Level 7 incident occurred at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan. A 9. 0-magnitude earthquake off the coast of Japan caused the plant to shut down automatically, but it also lost power from the grid to run cooling systems. On-site diesel turbines provided power until a 45-foot tsunami hit the top, rupturing the turbines and backup batteries. Eventually the saves failed and the hearts began to melt. Site technicians pumped seawater into the reactors and purged the radioactive gas, but the excessive pressures caused leaks and the accumulated hydrogen exploded in 3 of the reactors, causing more radioactive blankets to be released into the air and ocean. Despite the severity of the event, there were no immediate deaths from radiation exposure. In 2018, a factory employee died of lung cancer related to radiation exposure. However, it is estimated that the evacuation of more than 160,000 people from the domain caused around 2,000 deaths, in addition to around 18,000 to 19,000 deaths from the tsunami. Meanwhile, the United Nations has concluded that the radiation released will not cause increases in cancer rates. After the Fukushima tragedy, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission took additional steps to ensure that existing plants were responsive to herbal failures such as severe earthquakes and floods.
These 3 mistakes were very genuine and terrible occasions for everyone involved. The very concept of some other twist of fate naturally provokes a reaction of fear. It’s almost hard not to be afraid of nuclear power. But how harmful is it? If humans continue to accumulate the amount of energy being fed into the world, how does nuclear fission compare to alternatives?
Nuclear force generation has existed since the 1960s. Lately there are 426 reactors in operation internationally with a generation capacity of 381,451 GWe, estimated at around 10% of total electricity production. Most of them are between 32 and 42 years old.
The 92 reactors operating lately in the United States constitute the largest fleet of any country, either in number of reactors and production capacity. Nuclear power has accounted for a constant 18 to 20 percent of U. S. electric power generation. U. S. for the past 30 years.
Proponents of nuclear power point out that this large amount of generation means that, historically, nuclear power has been as safe as renewables in terms of deaths consistent with TWh of electrical power produced. This surprises many other people because, of course, the industry’s tragic injuries have been the subject of 24/7 media coverage. Stories about the absence of incidents over the past 60 years of nuclear production are simply not interesting, they have safely provided much of the world’s energy.
I’m not minimizing the terrible injuries that have occurred, nor am I saying that can’t happen. But fossil fuel consumption has hurt and killed millions of others due to air pollution. extraction. Finally, it is difficult to quantify the burden and loss of life of greenhouse fuel emissions due to accelerating climate change:
Our global knowledge / What are the safest and cleanest energy resources?by Hannah Ritchie
While the U. S. As the U. S. has reduced its coal consumption, the world is burning it at a near-record rate of about 8 billion metric tons. In 2021, global coal-fired generation reached a record high, accounting for more than a third of total electric power generation. Meanwhile, nuclear power in complex economies has stalled, in China and Russia.
I don’t think nuclear force deserves to be the only option to meet the demand for developing force, but it does deserve to be included in the mix.
In addition to the United States (the largest existing manufacturer of nuclear power), I chose two European countries, France and Germany, to highlight how nuclear power has been perceived across countries in their energy strategy.
Our global data
As noted above, France has the highest share of nuclear power in its electric power generation mix at around 70% and the 56 state-owned reactors are the highest of any country after the United States. But now it turns out that France has really relied too much on nuclear power plants. A combination of maintenance problems and a reduced cooling water source has led to the closure of part of the country’s reactors, causing a source crisis with costs ranging from €70 to more than €1,000 consistent with megawatt hours.
France’s production loss may not have come at a worse time for Europe. Historically, France was a net exporter of electricity during the summer months. Meanwhile, Germany (starting under the government of Gerhard Schroeder, who championed the allocation of Nord Stream 1 and later joined Russia’s Gazprom) made the opposite resolve to close all its nuclear power plants, but in doing so, has become too dependent on Russian herbal fuel that was disrupted after the invasion of Ukraine. Angela Merkel was first willing to expand Germany’s use of nuclear force, but reversed her position after the Fukushima incident.
Most of Europe now faces the prospect of a very difficult winter with very limited energy supplies. My view is that nuclear generation should be a component of the low-emission mix, but not the only source.
I do not have the position in this article to deal with all the disruptions of processing (and reprocessing), shipping and storing nuclear fuel. But to put things in perspective, the U. S. avoids about 400 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. Due to demanding shipping situations and the location of a centralized garage facility, spent fuel is ultimately stored at 70 sites in 35 states. Spent fuel still comprises more than 90% of its energy, however, recycling (reprocessing) has its own upheavals, which possibly should be reevaluated because U. S. policy is not yet important. U. S. It was basically explained in 1977.
Cost has been a major factor for the nuclear force, especially due to the more than decade-long lead time and the huge initial construction load of a GWe reactor. Many “recent” reactor projects (the recent ones are in quotation marks because all of the above was due to force measured in decades) have far exceeded budget and deadlines, to the point of bankrupting Westinghouse and causing the biggest default on municipal bonds in 1983. Georgia Power’s Vogtle Unit 3 is lately charging fuel for its startup, “only” six years past due and $16 billion more than its budget. Before that, a new nuclear reactor has not come online in the U. S. It has been the first in 20 years and was also plagued by delays and excesses that nearly led to the bankruptcy of the Tennessee Valley Authority. As SA author Michael Fitzsimmons points out, even NuScale’s pilot program with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) suffered similar budget problems and lost some spouse communities.
Of course, the “elephant in the room” challenge to nuclear force is fear-driven NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitudes, as noted above. Based on the studies I’ve done for this article, I think I’d rather live closer to a next-generation nuclear power plant than near a coal-fired power plant. Even hydropower suffers similar challenges, such as the New England Clean Energy Connect assignment approved in Maine last year.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) reduce reactor vessels to less than three hundred MW(e) in an effort to address beyond disruptions with the establishment, structure, and operation of giant-scale nuclear power plants. By standardizing and mass-producing those small reactors, they hope to mitigate the prices and delays associated with the traditional structure of giant on-site reactors.
They are designed for flexible fundamental use by allowing the installation of assemblies with the option to expand capacity according to demand. They are also designed to be easier to use with reduced staffing requirements, have fewer portions to maintain, and many can be securely closed. down and cooled without connecting to an external force source. You can read more about what SMRs are here.
NuScale has its roots in a Department of Energy-funded task called the Multi-Application Light Water Reactor (MASLWR) in the early 2000s, led by the Idaho National Laboratory with Oregon State University, whose team member, Dr. Jose Reyes. In 2007, OSU transferred generation rights and created NuScale Power.
In 2011, the company went through an existential crisis when its largest investor pleaded guilty to running a Ponzi scheme at a time when the company needed to raise more funds. NuScale’s majority owner at a time when the Fukushima crisis had cast doubt on the industry’s long-term. Fluor also signed an agreement to supply engineering and structure for long-term NuScale plants.
Since 2013, NuScale has won several DOE awards and monetary assistance to expand its generation and fund NuScale’s first customer, the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) Carbon-Free Energy Project (CFPP).
In May of this year, NuScale became a publicly traded company following de-SPAC’s transaction with Spring Valley Acquisition Corp. The transaction provided the Company with earnings of $380 million, adding $235 million of personal investments in public equity investors (“PIPE”). Fluor remains the majority owner of NuScale, along with strategic investors, many of whom are already working with the company:
In another sign from last June, the U. S. government has been in charge of the government. U. S. It committed $14 million for an initial engineering and design study in Romania that could lead to the structure of a plant there.
NuScale Power is one of many corporations researching SMR technologies and, lately, the only publicly traded natural game in the space. In 2020, it became the first and only company to gain popular design approval from the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. a plant of 12 modules of 50 MWe consistent with the module. According to NRC’s website, there are 3 other corporations in the “pre-application” procedure for SMR, meaning they have been contacted regarding a potential application, in addition to NuScale for their 77 MWe Modules.
This vital and hard-to-obtain approval allows prospective consumers to submit it as a component of their own combined licensing programs to build and operate a nuclear power plant based on NuScale technology. This is not a rubber shock absorber for building a factory, as there are still site-specific demanding situations to consider. Safety and cargo issues will remain until the plants are built and commissioned. However, approval from arguably the world’s strictest nuclear regulator may also make it less difficult to sell NuScale to foreign consumers. List of ongoing projects of the company. Please note that these do not constitute signed and binding contracts.
The company’s regulatory leadership derives in part from its existing freshwater reactor generation technique and traditional reactor fuel to reduce the risk of progression and testing required through some of the other techniques followed.
Each NuScale power module (NPM) is capable of generating 77 MWe. A typical power plant built with 12 modules would produce 924 MWe, enough to power 700,000 homes, or roughly the output of 2. 9 million solar panels or 308 utility-scale wind turbines. NuScale designed for a 60-year operating life.
Corporate website
It is vital to note that NuScale’s passive cooling design eliminates the need for a Class 1E backup force, which is required for all existing U. S. nuclear power plants. In the event of an emergency shutdown. NPMs can produce and cool automatically without any action on the operator component, without any external force source and without further water pumping.
Another major milestone for the plant’s viability and operating costs was recently reached when the company announced last month that the NRC had accepted the company’s method for calculating the expected length of the buffer zone surrounding its reactors. Potentially, this will allow the “emergency take” plan zone (EPZ) around a plant to be the site boundary that radiates 10 miles from existing nuclear plants. This would allow plants to be located closer to commercial consumers for process heat sampling, desalination or green hydrogen production applications closer to users, and the use of enclosed coal plant locations in the existing network.
In addition to promoting NuScale’s force modules, the company will sell plant designs in capacities of 4, 6 or 12 modules and license their generation to consumers of apps and ads. NuScale owns the patents and intellectual property, allowing it to conduct an asset optimization business. model. The partners, many of whom are investors, will build the modules themselves and build the power plants. This means that the company will have the capital expenditures related to building its own plants and keep the modules in its own inventory. This also means that the company will get bills from end consumers as they build their plants, as early as 6 years before the announced operation date (COD).
The company will also sign service agreements with end consumers to assist them in their regulatory and licensing efforts, commissioning and testing, initial personnel education and required inspections of nuclear equipment. These benefits can begin as early as 8 years before COD. Other services, such as fuel supply, operation and management, spare parts, etc. , can last only the 60-year life of the plants and end with decommissioning. The company is targeting $16 million in monetary gains by 2022, with particularly high figures. generated as modules are delivered in greater numbers until the end of the decade:
Company Presentation December 2021
With $350 million in cash in June and no debt, the company expects to be fully funded for its business plan. The company’s current valuation of $2600 million (257. 2 million diluted shares x $11. 40, minus net money of $350 million) is moderate given the value of the company. Prospective if it captures only a very small portion of the global nuclear power plant market. until 2050.
It is no exaggeration to say that the world is facing an impending energy deficit accompanied by environmental effects that are further exacerbated by filling the hole by slowly burning fossil fuels. While renewable resources are emerging rapidly, they are sufficient to meet demand. and have their own limits of intermittency and availability.
The nuclear force is safer than many understand and is thought to be in the formulas of a blank force strategy. SMR technologies are being developed that promise to mitigate protection and cargo issues related to later generations of nuclear power plants. NuScale, by taking the evolutionary technique of existing reactor technology, eliminates some of the technical hazards and wins the regulatory race, giving the company valuable merit and first merit in the market.
I consider this to be a speculative acquisition with a maximum threat but a maximum potential reward. A short-term catalyst for stocks can come from the signing of one or more new consumers with binding contracts for forced plants. Short-term interest is very high, at more than 20% of outstanding shares, which could provide additional short-term seasoning to any smart news affecting the company.
This article written by
Disclosure: I have/have a long advantageous position in SMR shares, whether through ownership of shares, features or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself and it expresses my own opinions. I don’t get any refunds for this (other than Seeking Alpha). I have nothing to do with a company whose actions are analyzed in this article.