2 ms·

Smaller, safer, modular reactors should have been our focus decades ago. We are several generations behind where we ought to be, because we haven't prioritized

Smaller, safer, modular reactors should have been our focus decades ago. We are several generations behind where we ought to be, because we haven't prioritized it. The zero-nuclear agenda, combined with cheap natural gas and a (to me) strange fixation on renewables* has held us back. *I say strange, because renewables have only just now started to get to make sense at scale, despite the reliance on fossil fuels to provide a base load, when we could have had a clean grid by now without them had we tried.

Retric 5y ago
Modular reactors don’t actually reduce costs in any meaningful way. Construction costs are significant, but surprisingly low percentage of overall costs. For example nuclear needs a large highly trained workforce for decades. Every individual pulling 100k * 50 years is 5 million dollars, and you need a large workforce. Arguably security guards and medical staff are unnecessary, but modular reactors don’t lower those costs. Fuel is similarly expensive and no in practice reprocessing doesn’t really help. Shutting down for refueling is again expensive when you consider it happens 30 times over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant. Decommissioning is extremely expensive even if it can but off. Even highly subsidized insurance is yet again expensive. Overall construction costs aren’t limited to the reactor you still need radiation shielding, cooling towers or the equivalent, cooling ponds for waste, roads, offices etc. Don’t get me wrong if someone had come up with a great modular reactor 20 years ago Nuclear might be much better off today, but we’re simply past the point where more R&D is going to help. The only possibly for change is if nighttime electricity costs ended up much higher than current daytime costs. However a lot of demand is being shifted to nighttime because costs are currently cheaper, change that equation and nighttime demand will fall dramatically.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Retric 5y ago

Modular reactors don’t actually reduce costs in any meaningful way. Construction costs are significant, but surprisingly low percentage of overall costs. For example nuclear needs a large highly trained workforce for decades. Every individual pulling 100k * 50 years is 5 million dollars, and you need a large workforce. Arguably security guards and medical staff are unnecessary, but modular reactors don’t lower those costs. Fuel is similarly expensive and no in practice reprocessing doesn’t really help. Shutting down for refueling is again expensive when you consider it happens 30 times over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant. Decommissioning is extremely expensive even if it can but off. Even highly subsidized insurance is yet again expensive. Overall construction costs aren’t limited to the reactor you still need radiation shielding, cooling towers or the equivalent, cooling ponds for waste, roads, offices etc. Don’t get me wrong if someone had come up with a great modular reactor 20 years ago Nuclear might be much better off today, but we’re simply past the point where more R&D is going to help. The only possibly for change is if nighttime electricity costs ended up much higher than current daytime costs. However a lot of demand is being shifted to nighttime because costs are currently cheaper, change that equation and nighttime demand will fall dramatically.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]