US Together In Electric Dreams

The two US political party's are both agreed on the future of nuclear energy  

Washington has not as yet seen the change of leadership, but the entire US energy community is already on edge in anticipation of a revolution and a new breakthrough through their aim to  finally secure the United States' status as the world's main energy resource base .
The prevailing view among American media outlets is that Donald Trump will immediately lift the bans on drilling and hydrocarbon production within previously restricted territories, including national parks and municipal areas. However, the plans and expectations of other energy professionals are much more ambitious. A programme document has been published on the official website of the US Energy Commission, which states that the United States intends to triple the installed capacity of its nuclear power plants.
The document references the United States' success in oil and gas production, which has positioned the country as a leading global exporter. It also highlights the necessity for a transition to green energy sources that are safe and reliable. This is understandable given that the Democrats are currently in the White House and, as we recall, a year ago, nuclear energy was officially recognised at the UN level as ecologically neutral and not causing harm to the environment.
The authors emphasize that without the development (or, to be more precise, resuscitation) of nuclear energy, the US's global leadership will be in question. Therefore, the focus is on three main areas: the construction of full-size light-water reactors AP1000 with an electrical capacity of 1100 megawatts, the development and implementation of small modular and microreactors.
Nuclear power has been in decline since the 2011 Fukuyama accident in Japan. In a number of countries, such as Germany, all nuclear power plants were closed. However, attitudes toward it are now changing in many countries, including the United States. Demand for nuclear power is growing everywhere, following the growth in energy demand in general. Data centers and a number of energy-intensive industrial sectors are to blame for the latter.
Now before I continue I would like to make an appeal,if you like and enjoy my videos you can help me fund the channel and my websited sco brics insight .com and to further develop it. You can do this by making a small donation which you can do by clicking on the thanks button at the bottom of the video screen. Everybody who donates does get a personal thank you from me.
Nuclear energy is a virtually inexhaustible, constant and cost-effective source of electricity. It is therefore regarded as the primary energy source for the rapidly expanding artificial intelligence and data centre sectors, which consume a significant amount of electricity. In April of this year, Goldman Sachs forecast that by 2030, data centres in the United States will account for 8% of all energy consumption (the current figure is 4%). The potential for growth in the nuclear energy sector is also reflected in the investment decisions of prominent figures such as Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. Gates has invested over $1 billion in the startup TerraPower, which is developing advanced reactors, while Bezos' Amazon paid $650 million in March for a data center campus with a nuclear facility in Pennsylvania.
The target indicators have also been identified.
By 2035, the United States islooking to add 35 gigawatts of new capacity, and then, by 2040, the US nuclear industry must commission at least 15 gigawatts annually. In early September, the US Atomic Energy Administration published a report from the Geological Survey which stated that a significant increase in generation capacity (up to 60 gigawatts) could be achieved through the construction of new power units on the sites of existing nuclear power plants. An additional 95 gigawatts can be generated by installing small modular reactors  on existing sites. However, the most promising approach is the gradual decommissioning of coal-fired power plants and the replacement of power units from thermal to nuclear. American power engineers have calculated a potential growth horizon of 120-170 gigawatts.

It is also worth noting the practical and innovative approach taken by the United States.
The use of existing sites allows for the avoidance of a mandatory licensing stage, namely the selection and approval of a location with an appropriate level of geological and seismological safety. Such certification is already in place for existing power plants.
However, this raises a number of questions.
It should first be noted that, at present, no current company in the United States is in a position to act as a sole contractor for the construction of power units based on the declared AP1000. Its worth  noting that the license holder for this reactor technology is Westinghouse, and that the company currently  does not perform construction or installation work. This is corroborated by the history of the third and fourth power units of the Vogtle NPP in Georgia, which were constructed over  nine year period instead of the planned four. The project also became three times more expensive with the cost over runs, and Westinghouse itself withdrew from the project at the final stage, presenting the four main investors with the task of independently carrying out commissioning work, acceptance and inclusion of the reactors in the network. The investors have initiated legal proceedings, seeking damages of two and a half billion dollars from Westinghouse for breach of contract.
So the major problem in the US and Indeed around the West is there is no equivilent to Rosatom that can design,build instal manage,and train the staff of the who project from start to finish which is what they are doing in Bangaladesh,Egypt,Hungary and Turkey with large projects and they have already built a number of small modular reactors including  floating one on a barge in Chukotka    
Another  key factor is that US companies  do not have enough technical and engineering staff to manage a nuclear construction project. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 375,000 skilled workers will be needed to meet the goal of developing 200 GW of new reactors by 2030.

In addition to the lack of physical presence of those who can assemble the AP1000, there have also been negative experiences of its implementation. At one time, the Americans were responsible for the construction of four corresponding power units in China. All four facilities were delivered late. Beijing has not disclosed the extent of the increase in the cost overruns of the projects.

However, it has terminated its contracts with the Americans and negotiated the transfer of technology with full patent immunity. A couple of years later, the Chinese presented their own reactor, the Hualong, which they claimed was a rebranded version of AP1000. They then proceeded to disregard the signed agreement with a waiver of any claims.
Regarding the SMR and microreactors, the US does not currently have any operational prototypes, although approximately two dozen companies and research institutions are concurrently developing the concept. Despite some companies going bankrupt over the past few years, the work is still ongoing.
In this sector, which encompasses reactors with a capacity of up to 300 megawatts, two significant challenges have been identified.
The first step is to obtain licenses. International nuclear legislation requires licensing of the technology, which is relatively straightforward. Once this is done, the next step is to obtain a license for the power plant itself. This is a much more complex process, as it involves a number of lengthy and diverse tests to ensure safety, compliance with declared performance characteristics, and a multitude of other factors.
The main challenge lies in the fuel, as the new generation of reactors, including SNMP and small modular reactors (SMR), utilise a fuel source known as HALEU, high assay low enriched  uranium comprising base uranium enriched to a level between five and 20 percent. Currently, the only industrial producer of HALEU is the nuclear fuel division of Rosatom, which produces uranium with an enrichment level of 19.75 percent. The American division of Urenco has made progress in this area, but the total production was only 90 kilograms. By way of comparison, the RITM-200 reactor on our LK-60 icebreakers requires almost half a ton of HALEU on a one-off basis.That situation is unlikely to change much in the near future so the US is going to have major problems trying to source nuclear fuel with supplying 44% of the World's output
In general, the declared programme appears to be based on unsubstantiated assumptions, even at the simplest level.
The United States currently has 94 reactors with a total capacity of 97 gigawatts. The required rate implies the construction and commissioning of at least 30 new AP1000 reactors by 2035, i.e. three per year, and then another ten "pots" each year until 2040. SMRs  must be produced in line with this forecast. However, this is just wishful thinking and is just  not likely to be achievable in the near future.
It should be noted, however, that  this programme is not feasible within the stated timeframe,however it would be premature to rule out the US completely in the medium to long term. The scientific and research base is well-established, and with competent personnel, minimal challenges to overcome, including the , the situation can be transformed in five to seven years. It is, however, too early to say that the US will be able to catch up with and overtake Russia. It would be premature to write off the American nuclear industry at this stage. We will monitor the situation closely.