5 ms·

The difference is that nuclear is the only one where the first one’s cost is measured in the the tens of billions. Nuclear is just too big for a privatized ene

The difference is that nuclear is the only one where the first one’s cost is measured in the the tens of billions. Nuclear is just too big for a privatized energy market’s participants.

cpill 5y ago
what happened to the micro nuclear?
- afterburner 5y ago
  You mean the theoretical ones?
- thedrbrian 5y ago
  We’re doing it https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/ https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/ https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-smr-to-begin-regulatory-assessment/ https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-smr-to-begin-regul...
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  So far every attempt at small modular reactors built assembly line style has failed. Currently there's two projects with some momentum: NuScale's pilot plant in Idaho, and the recently announced Rolls Royce project. Sadly NuScale seems to be struggling to meet timeline and cost targets, and there were some headlines last year about the sponsoring utility pulling out of the project. I'm rooting for them but it doesn't look good. The RR project is still just on paper really, and is closer to a medium sized reactor than SMR. Maybe they've cracked the code? Maybe not, we'll see. Every nuclear thread here people chime in with a reflexive "just build nuclear smarter" answer without actually addressing why every prior attempt at this has failed. A lot of people don't want to develop an understanding of the challenges more sophisticated than smugly blaming environmental activists, over regulation, etc. Look at these projects from the prospective of potential private investment. Anyone doing basic due diligence is going to realize that the odds are stacked against a project hitting it's time and cost goals. Then you look at the trend lines for levelized cost of renewables + storage, and you realize that even in the best case scenario, within 2 decades you may be squeezed out of the market even if the efficiencies of scale and learning kick in.
xiphias2 5y ago
It’s not too big, just too politicized. Bill Gates wanted to do it for a long time, but he can’t get the political buy in. For me even seeing the Tesla Berlin factory delays makes me sad: in China already the second factory is being built while Germany is coming up with new arguments without looking at the cost/benefit ratio for EU of those delays.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Using someone who's been comfortably in the top 5 wealthiest people for the past two decades, with a 12-digit estimated net worth is perhaps not a good way to illustrate "not too big."
  - xiphias2 5y ago
    The main reason I was writing it is that there _is_ willingness from the top tech billionaires to invest in modern nuclear plants. They don’t do it because the politicians don’t let them do it, and it’s not only about regulations, they want to keep full control.

The difference is that nuclear is the only one where the first one’s cost is measured in the the tens of billions. Nuclear is just too big for a privatized energy market’s participants.

cpill 5y ago

what happened to the micro nuclear?

afterburner 5y ago
You mean the theoretical ones?
thedrbrian 5y ago
We’re doing it https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/ https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/ https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-smr-to-begin-regulatory-assessment/ https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-smr-to-begin-regul...
jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
So far every attempt at small modular reactors built assembly line style has failed. Currently there's two projects with some momentum: NuScale's pilot plant in Idaho, and the recently announced Rolls Royce project. Sadly NuScale seems to be struggling to meet timeline and cost targets, and there were some headlines last year about the sponsoring utility pulling out of the project. I'm rooting for them but it doesn't look good. The RR project is still just on paper really, and is closer to a medium sized reactor than SMR. Maybe they've cracked the code? Maybe not, we'll see. Every nuclear thread here people chime in with a reflexive "just build nuclear smarter" answer without actually addressing why every prior attempt at this has failed. A lot of people don't want to develop an understanding of the challenges more sophisticated than smugly blaming environmental activists, over regulation, etc. Look at these projects from the prospective of potential private investment. Anyone doing basic due diligence is going to realize that the odds are stacked against a project hitting it's time and cost goals. Then you look at the trend lines for levelized cost of renewables + storage, and you realize that even in the best case scenario, within 2 decades you may be squeezed out of the market even if the efficiencies of scale and learning kick in.

xiphias2 5y ago

It’s not too big, just too politicized. Bill Gates wanted to do it for a long time, but he can’t get the political buy in. For me even seeing the Tesla Berlin factory delays makes me sad: in China already the second factory is being built while Germany is coming up with new arguments without looking at the cost/benefit ratio for EU of those delays.

bobthepanda 5y ago
Using someone who's been comfortably in the top 5 wealthiest people for the past two decades, with a 12-digit estimated net worth is perhaps not a good way to illustrate "not too big."
- xiphias2 5y ago
  The main reason I was writing it is that there _is_ willingness from the top tech billionaires to invest in modern nuclear plants. They don’t do it because the politicians don’t let them do it, and it’s not only about regulations, they want to keep full control.