Ok, I'm convinced.

So we're gonna need about 20 or so in the next 20 years, where can we buy them?

Ok, so we're going to need some people to set them up and run them as well, where are we getting them? Do we need to train some or are we drawing on an international pool of trained nuclear techs?

How much is this going to cost us?

@AndyD thanks, great pick up.

@Bugsy Great questions. If you build out a scenario of rapid decarbonisation, with no new fossil baseload on the basis of urgency, you do still include more new build of Generation III+ reactors because, unfortunately, IFR has been largely on ice since it was sh!tcanned by the Clinton Adminstration. So the question is how quickly can we bring forward IFR to commercial dominance.

As noted above, the UK looks to be a probable front runner for the introduction of the technology via GH-Hitachi, though the PRISM does not, to my knowledge, plan on the complete use of the plutonium, just enough to downgrade it to levels that meet waste guidelines. Nonetheless, a lot of eyes are on that situation.

For the bigger picture though, the Science Council for Global Initiatives are working to build the structures that would enable this rapid roll out like manufacturing, international cooperation and sharing of expertise, one standard design and yes (well picked), mobile teams of experts. The book to read for this is "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees. Cracking read, the true lay-person text for IFR.

Cost, well, if built as designed, and if the design is a global standard (as SCGI are working towards) there are clear reasons why IFR should be cheaper in capital terms than current LWR or at the very least, no more expensive: no pressurisation, far simpler design, fewer parts, less materials. Some of the IFR materials would be higher grade though, which may put upward pressure on price. But the bottom line is, we don't yet know; we will need a commitment to construction before that evidence is in. Chicken, meet egg.

Thanks Ben, but that does sound a little like a bait-and-switch.

You mean we can't actually buy any IFR units or find anyone with expertise in building them?

But if can we buy into nuclear through the promise of IFR, we should be build some GenIII+ reactors in the meantime?

How many countries are building these reactors and how many people are we going to need versus how many being trained?

Are we going to inflate the market on nuclear techs? Will we be able to get enough of them?

Ben, no problem.

Indeed, it's hard (as yet) to say what the ultimate cost profile will be. TBH, I expect the mode of manufacture SHOULD have more impact on the economics of the plant than the technical aspects of the design per se (i.e. I'd expect an SMR-LWR not to look too radically different in cost to a modular IFR).

Let me also make my own position clear - it'll be hard to overcome the economy of scale aspect compared to something like a 1500MW ESBWR (which lacks steam generators, etc, and is delivered to site with a near-fully assembled vessel with complete internals, doesn't need recirc pumps etc.)

I'm also unsure where IFR/PRISM would sit in terms of another niche relatively poorly served by current design, and that's load-following. If unit capital cost can be brought down, that should make this far more viable - and I'd have assumed with quite such a good heat-transfer mechanism, and no xenon-poisoning issue, IFR/PRISM ought to play well in this space.

One aspect that IS worthy of thought, however, and I've yet to see any solid work on this, is the impact on disposal costs of burning actinides and leaving only fission product waste to be considered. A repository and encapsualtion aimed at isolating waste for (say) 500 years can be a radically different beast than one with a 200,000 year isolation capability.

@AndyD again, great remarks, very relevant. We can’t know how effective IFR manufacturing will be until established. All I can really commit to now is an opinion that capital costs would be in the range of current nuclear and IMO to the lower end.

“Thanks Ben, but that does sound a little like a bait-and-switch.”

@Bugsy, yes I hear you but let me be clear. My long-established position (fully outlined at Decarbonise SA) from the POV of a climate change professional is that we need continued growth in nuclear power. I would like to see that transition through to IFR (or IFR plus LFTR) as quickly as possible, but the process is not quick. Never is.

It just happens that your questions are sufficiently switched on that they don’t come with ready answers. My inquisitors who argued against the technology being proven and real are wrong. You are talking about commercialisation and deployment: entirely relevant areas of discussion. It’s not a bait and switch. You’ve just found the area or uncertainty.

“You mean we can't actually buy any IFR units or find anyone with expertise in building them?”

Essentially, yes. We can’t place an order.

TBC

@Bugsy from previous

“But if can we buy into nuclear through the promise of IFR, we should be build some GenIII+ reactors in the meantime?”

IMO certainly, in the interest of cutting emissions ASAP. Bear in mind from the Australian perspective, we have considerable work to do from a legal and regulatory perspective, and certainty on IFR may be a lot greater once we declare our market ready for nuclear in general.

“How many countries are building these reactors and how many people are we going to need versus how many being trained?”

Currently, no one is building them. I have some insight into the efforts of SCGI on this front but they do not send me the minutes if you catch my drift. Lots of people will be needed if we want the fastest possible rollout. A more realistic scenario though is scale down of currently commercial reactor new build, and scale up IFR.

This from the SCGI: “we'd like to organize an international IFR conference that we hope will grow out of our work with Russia, the UK, and the World Energy Forum'sOctober energy conference in Dubai. The IFR will have the nuclear program's focus there in front of many heads of state and other policymakers. It's being sponsored by the Emir of Dubai and the UN/World Bank-affiliated World Energy Forum.”

"Are we going to inflate the market on nuclear techs? Will we be able to get enough of them?"

I expect they will be in great demand. The UAE for example purchased both hard ware and construction/operation expertise from South Korea in order to establish it’s own domestic nuclear industry. Australia, having divested itself of nuclear in our Universities, would need to do similar for a time.