Talk:NuScale Power

File:NuScale-Reactor.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NuScale-Reactor.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Draft

I have a financial connection with NuScale. I've prepared a draft article at User:CorporateM/NuScale Power that contains freely licensed photos, 30+ additional reliable sources, and other improvements. I was hoping a disinterested editor might take the time to take a look at the suggested draft and add it to article-space if they feel it is compliant with our content policies and an improvement to the article.

A few notes:

• I'm not sure of the best way to handle the diagram image; we could either make it large enough so the text is legible, ask NuScale to rework the image with larger text, or crop out the text.
• Because this is a technology in-development, that is not currently mass-produced on a commercial basis, I think we need to be especially careful about future-looking claims. That being said, future-tech is one of the exceptions I listed ages ago at WP:ORGSPECULATION. Just something to keep an eye on.

Any additional feedback/editing is welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Thank you for declaring your COI. It looks alright to me. The only thing I would suggest is to inform the article's original author, Awatral (talk · contribs) that you want to make this change, as well as other major contributors: Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) and Coenen (talk · contribs). Nice work. -- œ^™ 03:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I made the change. I am surprised that Kenwood Group is a redlink, considering how much press the SEC investigation recieved. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I met with NuScale people several years ago and talked with them about contributing to Wikipedia, and in particular, I asked them for diagrams of their reactors. I am pleased to see that they applied a free license to one and uploaded it. I checked the references in the articles. There are a couple which do not have URLs and which are contemporary journals, which I thought was a little unusual, but the statements those are backing are also backed with other citations. I appreciate the inclusion of the funding investigation, because organizations only become more respectable when they acknowledge all significant press which they receive even if it is not part of a typical organizational image.

I hope that in time the organization continues to do more public outreach. I became interested in them when their staff organized community meetings which presented general science education, including nuclear power but even more about other power sources. I know that outreach of this sort does not scale and am pleased that they made some effort to promote the development of some content on Wikipedia. I would love to see them do more.

This is a fine article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Some safety concerns

"Smaller, cheaper reactor aims to revive nuclear industry, but design problems raise safety concerns" User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

lua errors

I was startled to see all these lua errors; they were there before I came upon the article. My reference works, so I am asking the previous editors to address the lua errors, please. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Choice of cost comparators is narrow

Under "Comparisons," NuScale's claimed per-kilowatt costs are compared to overnight costs for three other low-carbon sources: conventional nuclear, coal with CO2 sequestration, and natural gas with CO2 sequestration. Given that over 72% of newbuild generation capacity worldwide was wind and solar in 2020 [1] -- a large majority of actual new supply even adjusting for average capacity factors -- what is the justification for omitting wind and solar from this comparison? Omission of the lowest-LCOE low-carbon sources [2] gives the text a promotional appearance, as if comparators were being cherrypicked to make a case for NuScale.

If comparison is being restricted to _dispatchable_ low-carbon power sources, this should be stated and justified, and at least hydro and solar/wind firmed by gas and/or storage should be included as additional comparators.

Also, estimated prices at the time of NuScale's claimed market entry (c. 2030), not 2013 or 2022 prices, would be the appropriate basis of comparison, given that renewable costs are expected to decline by ~54% (solar) and ~60% (wind) on this timescale [3], storage costs by ~50% [4]. These are the costs that will be relevant when NuScale is on the market.

Finally, LCOE, not overnight cost, is the most appropriate (and widely used in energy literature) standard of comparison. Overnight cost omits financing, fuel, O&M, etc. and is not even "an actual estimate of construction cost" [5].

---

[1] https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/March/Renewable-Capacity-Statistics-2021 . Report states that over 80% of 2020 newbuild capacity was renewable, 91% of that wind and solar, hence 0.80 x 0.91 = .728 (>72%).

[2] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

[3] Solar/wind cost decline: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/04/30/solar-and-wind-costs-continue-to-fall-as-power-becomes-cleaner/?sh=a7d4ce2785f9 . Solar given at $44/MWh, wind $50/MWh (2019 figures), both estimated below $20/MWh by 2030, hence ~54% and ~60% declines respectively. Technical literature sources for similar projections could easily be identified.

[4] https://www.storage-lab.com/levelized-cost-of-storage/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overnight_cost Lgilman909 (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Overnight cost of solar or wind is not comparable to that of nuclear or other dispatchable technologies due to the extreme difference in capacity factors. Nuclear has an average capacity factor of over 90% in western countries, while solar and wind are between 10% and 30% on average. LCOE would be a better measure, but even then you are comparing a dispatchable source with variable non-dispatchable sources. You would need to take into account the cost of battery storage and grid upgrades, as well as the cost of seasonal variation (e.g. in Germany an average solar plant produces about 5 times more in May-June compared to December-January, thus creating a huge problem for a grid that wants to rely on solar power, either of overproduction in summer or lack of generation in winter). These costs can be orders of magnitude higher than LCOE for solar and wind in grids with high penetration of variable renewable sources. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Ita140188 is completely correct, and that's why we shouldn't be using ANY cost comparisons in this article where the sources don't do the comparison to NuScale themselves. Your cost comparisons are all WP:OR unless the source mentions "NuScale". ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Updates

Hello! KM with NuScale Power here, seeking to update the company's Wikipedia article by submitting requests here on the Talk page. I have a paid conflict of interest and will avoid making edits to the page myself. I look forward to working with editors to make improvements and appreciate any assistance.

I see this article has achieved Good status, but this promotion occurred in 2015. The article is a bit out of date, so I'd like to flag some issues and offer text suggestions and other updates based on reputable sources. To start, I'd like to focus on the "Funding difficulties and rebound" section.

Here are three specific suggestions:

• Replace "cluster of 12" with "cluster of 6" reactors
• Replace 720MWe with 462MWe
• Replace "$130 million/year" with "$140 million/year"

These content changes are supported by "UAMPS downsizes NuScale SMR plans" (July 21, 2021), Nuclear News, American Nuclear Society.

My goal here is to update the current text. I'd like to think this is a clear improvement but I will let other editors review and update the article on my behalf. Please let me know if I can provide other information or sources at this time. Thanks! NuScaleKM (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@NuScaleKM Edits made as requested (after careful review). Cheers Duke Gilmore (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Duke Gilmore: Thanks for making these corrections. I'm submitting another request below, if you're willing to review another suggestion for making the article more accurate. Thanks again! NuScaleKM (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Development history request

Continuing my series of suggestions for improving this Wikipedia article, I'd now like to focus on the "Deployment history" section.

• Currently the article says, "In January 2018, the NRC agreed that the NuScale SMR does not need back-up power." I think the text should provide a bit more context and present this as a safety enhancement, per World Nuclear News (which is published by the World Nuclear Association). I suggest replacing with "In January 2018, the NRC agreed that the passive safety features allow NuScale's SMR design to operate safely without back-up power.

• In the paragraph starting "In August 2020...", please change "60 megawatt-per-module version" to "77 megawatt-per-module version" per Power magazine

References

Again my goal here is to make the article's text more accurate and I'm happy to provide more information if required. Can User:Duke Gilmore or other editors please review this request and update the text for me? Thanks! NuScaleKM (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@NuScaleKM Edits implemented (after review)...cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Duke Gilmore: Thanks again for making these updates to the article on my behalf. I'm submitting another request below, if you're willing to review another suggestion. NuScaleKM (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Reactors request

Continuing my series of requests for improving this article, I'd like to shift focus to the "Reactors" section.

• Currently the article says, "The modules would be pre-fabricated, delivered by railcar..." To avoid confusion between railcar and railroad car I suggest replacing with "The modules would be pre-fabricated, delivered by rail..."

 Done Duke Gilmore (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• The section's third paragraph says, "The company claims it can shut down and continue cooling itself indefinitely during most accidents." This has been certified by others. Could the text be presented as more matter-of-fact than a claim? I propose "Passive safety features ensure reactors will shut down and continue cooling indefinitely in the unlikely event of a severe accident."

@NuScaleKM The provided citations are not so unequivocal. Can you provide a citation that supports "This has been certified by others." ? Duke Gilmore (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Same as before, my goal here is to make the page's text more accurate and I'm happy to provide more information as needed. Can User:Duke Gilmore or other editors please review this request? Thanks again! NuScaleKM (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Duke Gilmore: Thanks for reviewing this request and making updates. The NRC certified this and I'm happy to provide some additional sources for verification:

• This source says "The design uses natural, “passive” processes such as convection and gravity in its operating systems and safety features, while producing up to approximately 600 megawatts of electricity. The SMR’s 12 modules, each producing 50 megawatts, are all submerged in a safety-related pool built below ground level."
• Time says "Instead of the traditional concrete-domed plant, each NuScale module consists of a 76-ft.-tall, 15-ft.-diameter cylindrical reactor and containment vessel sitting in a steel-lined, water-filled pool below-ground. The SMRs automatically shut down and self-cool in the event of power failure."
• This source says "If needed, the reactor shuts down and self cools indefinitely without the need for either alternating current or direct current power or additional water. The containment vessel is submerged in a heat sink for core cooling in a below grade reactor pool housed in a Seismic Category 1 reactor building as defined by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In essence, the unit continues to cool until the decay heat dissipates at which point the reactor is air cooled"
• This source says "The NRC agreed and approved NuScale’s walk-away-safe concept earlier this year. That means just what it sounds like - the reactor doesn’t need the complex back-up power systems that traditional reactors require and which traditionally add a lot of cost as well as some uncertainty. No humans or computers are needed to intervene, no AC or DC power, no pumps, and no additional water for cooling"

I hope this helps. NuScaleKM (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@NuScaleKM This is interesting. However, your proposed language sounds a bit like an editorial (though frankly the original is slightly worse, "the company...can shut down"?). How about "Reactors shut down and self-cool during power outages."? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the current sentence is good as is: "The reactor is designed to shut down and cool itself indefinitely during most accidents", as it does neither include any "company claims", nor something that mathematically cannot be proven true. Thus, I'll mark this as answered. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox request

Continuing my series of requests, I'd like to offer some suggestions for improving the Infobox.

• In the image caption, please change "Tigard, Oregon" to "Portland, Oregon"
• Please change "Jose Reyes" to "José Reyes" per this source and others
• Please change the headquarters location from Tigard to Portland per this source and this source
  • Related to this, please remove the outdated sentence "Its headquarters are in Tigard and its production facility is located in Corvallis" in the Operations section. This is no longer accurate and the company is headquartered in Portland.
• For John Hopkins, please change "CEO" to "President and CEO" per source and source

My goal's to make the article's text more accurate. Can User:Duke Gilmore or other editors please review this request, too? Thanks again! NuScaleKM (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction request

I'd like to submit a request with some suggested improvements for the introduction.

• Please change the headquarters location from Tigard to Portland (source)
• Please change "NuScale has been approved to build reactors in Idaho, in 2029 and 2030" to "NuScale’s SMR design has been approved to use as part of the Carbon Free Power Project in Idaho, scheduled to start commercial operations in 2029". Here are some sources for verification:
  • World Nuclear News says "The first NuScale project to use Reuter-Stokes detectors will be the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) in Idaho Falls, USA, with the first NuScale VOYGR SMR power plant, scheduled to begin generating power in 2029."
  • The Indiana Environmental Reporter says "The Carbon Free Power Project at the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory has been in development since 2015 and is scheduled to begin generating power with NuScale VOYGR modules in 2029."
  • The American Public Power Association says "So far, over two dozen members of Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) have signed on to the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP). The interlocal agency is developing a site in Idaho owned by the Idaho National Laboratory. The project will use SMR technology being developed and licensed by NuScale Power."
• Please change "The design was approved for certification in July 2022" to "In 2022, the design became the first approved for certification by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." (source)
• Please change 60 megawatts of electricity to 77 megawatts of electricity per Oregon Public Broadcasting ("NuScale says its reactors can produce up to 77 megawatts of electricity apiece"), CNET ("Its modules are 76 feet tall and 15 feet in diameter, and can generate 77 megawatts of electricity"), and Reuters ("It also developed NuScale Power Module, a small and safe pressurized water reactor that can generate 77 megawatts electrical (MWe) of electricity")
• Please remove the text "fed from a large water reservoir"
• Please consider adding the text "The design uses 'passive' processes of convection and gravity to ensure safe shut downs and remain secure during emergencies" (source) because the passive processes enhance the safety of the plant compared to traditional reactor designs.
• Finally, please change "cut" to "completed".

Thanks again to User:Duke Gilmore and other editors who can correct the article on my behalf! NuScaleKM (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think #2 is giving undue weight. It's not like others are building the reactors with NuScale's design. Plus the current sentence is less awkward.

For #3, the current version announced it will certify sounds better to me than what you proposed.

Why should "fed from a large water reservoir" be removed?

#6 is kinda already in the lede. Its coolant loop uses natural convection

The rest has been implemented. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the class action lawsuit appropriate for this article?

I heard about Nuscale and came to Wikipedia to learn more about them. One of my favorite sections of Wikipedia articles is Controversy/Criticisms. I was a little surprised to learn that there was a lawsuit against Nuscale that wasn't in the article, it seems material to me. Would mention of this lawsuit be appropriate for this article? Texas ed (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)