4 ms·

I've always wondered: why isn't it possible to make tiny, safe, low-cost reactors? Do reactors really always have to be so big and expensive?

nradov 7y ago
Reactors can be small and (relatively) cheap, but those aren't cost effective for power production. Producing power for sale on the grid requires huge economies of scale to compete with other sources. Tiny, safe, low-cost reactors are a better fit for off-grid power and heat in remote areas.
philpem 7y ago
Human factors. It's easier to secure a massive plant than a thousand small ones. Imagine the outcome of some underpaid and overworked cable runner digging into a buried mini-reactor with a JCB digger. Or a trucker falls asleep at the wheel and drives their Mack truck through an above-ground reactor. The difference is between the media coverage being "Idiot drives truck into nuclear facility, is arrested, no damage" and "Idiot digs into mini-reactor, irradiates neighbourhood". And that's before people start yelling "Not in my back yard!"
- wahern 7y ago
  There are already thousands of medical and industrial sites which contain material arguably scarier and more susceptible to accidents than what would be in a small reactor. The most recent was several months ago at UW Harborview: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/hazmat-response-for-radioactive-breach-in-seattles-first-hill-neighborhood/945941940 https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/hazmat-response-for-radioac... I think your last reasons are probably more influential. Nobody knows or seems to care much about sites like where the above incident occurred. And so far such incidents have been fairly contained, at least in the U.S. In some other parts of the world neighborhoods do become contaminated on rare occasion.
08-15 7y ago
Because the licensing cost is the same per reactor, regardless of its power.

4 ms·

I've always wondered: why isn't it possible to make tiny, safe, low-cost reactors? Do reactors really always have to be so big and expensive?

by winter_blue 7y ago

nradov 7y ago
Reactors can be small and (relatively) cheap, but those aren't cost effective for power production. Producing power for sale on the grid requires huge economies of scale to compete with other sources. Tiny, safe, low-cost reactors are a better fit for off-grid power and heat in remote areas.
philpem 7y ago
Human factors. It's easier to secure a massive plant than a thousand small ones. Imagine the outcome of some underpaid and overworked cable runner digging into a buried mini-reactor with a JCB digger. Or a trucker falls asleep at the wheel and drives their Mack truck through an above-ground reactor. The difference is between the media coverage being "Idiot drives truck into nuclear facility, is arrested, no damage" and "Idiot digs into mini-reactor, irradiates neighbourhood". And that's before people start yelling "Not in my back yard!"
- wahern 7y ago
  There are already thousands of medical and industrial sites which contain material arguably scarier and more susceptible to accidents than what would be in a small reactor. The most recent was several months ago at UW Harborview: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/hazmat-response-for-radioactive-breach-in-seattles-first-hill-neighborhood/945941940 https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/hazmat-response-for-radioac... I think your last reasons are probably more influential. Nobody knows or seems to care much about sites like where the above incident occurred. And so far such incidents have been fairly contained, at least in the U.S. In some other parts of the world neighborhoods do become contaminated on rare occasion.
08-15 7y ago
Because the licensing cost is the same per reactor, regardless of its power.