Some of the "small modular nuclear reactor designs are built on the assumption that they don't need a full scale containment vessel because nothing can go that wrong. That may not be a good assumption. There's a lot to be said for large amounts of steel and concrete around reactors.
Containment vessels could also be made smaller if steam filtering were used instead of planning to just contain and condense it. I don't know if any SMRs plan to do this.
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1535/ML15355A411.pdf
[2] https://spectrum.ieee.org/media-library/image.jpg?id=2557419...
I don't see a future for this. If somebody thought it was a feasible design for construction in Western countries, they could buy the half completed sites at Summer for a song.
I also think 300MW is too big. It's not really small enough to get the supposed benefits of small and modular.
The entire nuclear industry appears to be off its rocker when it comes to designs that are possible to construct for any reasonable amount of money. They bungled the AP1000 so badly that it bankrupted Westinghouse, and there's no reason to believe that they learned enough from the experience to do better next time. It's all terribly depressing, and completely soured me on the possibility of nuclear for the next 20-40 years. And in 20-40 years, look at how far storage, wind, and solar will have developed. It's unlikely that my nuclear will ever be a dominant energy source.
My hypothesis is that modern economies with high wages will simply not be able to build a nuclear reactor economically. It appears to require a certain amount of 20th century technological advancement, but not so much economic advancement that labor costs are too high.
France had a much better track record with nuclear in their first round of building. France can also build large construction projects without the massive cost overruns that the US has had. But they can't seem to get a next gen reactor built.
A piece about it: https://www.archyde.com/the-folz-report-draws-up-a-severe-as...
This study may also offer some hints: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
Smaller, simpler projects don't tend to have the same issues because contractors know they can be replaced easily if they fail.
> France can also build large construction projects without the massive cost overruns that the US has had
Not always, some easily go overboard, like with the Parisian Philharmonic, or the absolutely massive Grand Paris Express (~200km of new high capacity metro lines around Paris) which has seen the budget go up from an original estimate of 19 billion to 35 billion (euros). Completely normal considering the scale and complexity, but still.
> Since construction began in March 2017, the project has been subject to several delays, including some caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,[10] and this has resulted in significant budget overruns. As of May 2022, the project is two years late and the expected cost is £25–26 billion,[11] 50% more than the original budget from 2016. It is currently planned to be commissioned in June 2027 and has a projected lifetime of 60 years. In February 2023, EDF announced that costs would rise to £32.7bn and completion would be delayed by a further 15 months to September 2028.[2][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
South Korea was able to eke our small decreases in cost (though some people have ended up in jail for falsifying record keeping). But otherwise, costs tend to rise. And I'm definitely not aware of a drop of 50% or so, to bring these excessive costs into the realm of competitiveness.
Which is 101 of big projects anyway. Hard to understand why french project wasn't deemed to risky to investors.
Lead is such a superior concept for reactor design and neutron economy, and mostly held back by the pace in material science.