We have district heating from the Temelin NPP for part of Central Bohemia here in Czech Republic:<p><a href="https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:20085809" rel="nofollow">https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:20085809</a><p>Similar setup is planned also for the Dukovany NPP but not yet built.<p>Modern efficient district heating (hot water pipes with thick insulation instead of the old steam based systems) is quite popular around here and thermal power plants or waste incinerators are often run in co-generation mode where they produce both electricity and district heating.
A problem here is that heat is very easy to store. So if one can make heat from intermittent power (say, resistively, or with some kind of heat pump) then storage becomes much less of an issue than if one wanted to store the electrical energy itself.<p>In any environment where renewable power is being curtailed, the cost of using that power to make heat will be very low. Nuclear heat will be competing against a very low cost alternative.
> Recent experience suggest that the SMR producers could face the same cost overruns and delays that have plagued makers of utility-scale reactors. An even bigger challenge could be convincing industries and utilities to forgo cheap natural gas.<p>Off-the-grid remote locations is the obvious market for electricity generation currently addressed with diesel fuel. Combined electricity/heat for large campuses and remote communities seems like another popular use case.<p>This article makes the case for high temperature industrial processes like the manufacture of Portland cement. I'd like to see an economic analysis but I can't see this being a viable option unless carbon emissions regulation penalizes fossil fuels.<p>Geography not only determines what is and is not available on-grid (electricity and/or natural gas) but the regulatory regime which can significantly impact design decisions.
This and heating districts with any power provided as an extra benefit are far better use cases for this technology than trying to compete with renewables, batteries, hydro, and transmission, most especially in markets where they absolutely need the heat but are also attempting to avoid CO2 emissions to obtain said heat.
There’s a good Omega Tau podcast episode froma few weeks ago, called “Modern Fission Reactors”, that covers modular reactors (and many other interesting reactor topics)<p><a href="https://omegataupodcast.net/359-modern-fission-reactors/" rel="nofollow">https://omegataupodcast.net/359-modern-fission-reactors/</a>
Technically these only for heating reactors are sound business case. From the investor, regulator, customer perspective there are many problems that are not startup solvable.<p>1. End-of-life and maintenance guarantees. Transferring nuclear waste and processing them is not cheap. You need to put capital aside to pay for these. Startup going bust and leaving customers to handle with the rest is not an option.<p>2. Regulations and safety. Just like standard nuclear, you need government subvention (not direct money transfer, but a law that puts upper cap to damages).<p>You can solve these with scale. If you build 1000s of standardized units of small heating reactors, special waste management and transportation solutions for just this type becomes economical. If they sell only 500, lifetime cost can be astronomical.
Trump issued an executive order on Janurary 12th with the title "Executive Order on Promoting Small Modular Reactors for National Defense and Space Exploration"<p><a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-small-modular-reactors-national-defense-space-exploration/" rel="nofollow">https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...</a><p>Seems like this will be a thing in the not too distant future.