5 ms·

Doesn't it take around a decade to build a new reactor? Just wondering if by the time new reactors are built, they're overtaken by cheaper battery storage and s

Doesn't it take around a decade to build a new reactor? Just wondering if by the time new reactors are built, they're overtaken by cheaper battery storage and solar rooftops.

poutine 5y ago
The US Navy has built hundreds of nuclear reactors in much shorter timeframes. There's nothing intrinsic about nuclear that demands such long builds. It'd need to be done at a societal level with some sort of standardization and mass industrial process. The French more or less did this for their nukes for instance.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  The reason for long duration is regulations and inspections. Navy has a lot fewer constraints in that aspect.
  - poutine 5y ago
    And yet the Navy has a pretty good safety record.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      As far as we know.
sofixa 5y ago
Battery storage is still hugely impractical on the scale required to keep a grid stable, even if we assume ( huge assumptions) that battery building capacity can keep up and be affordable. Also, batteries need to be changed due do depletion much more frequently than a nuclear reactor.
- ericmay 5y ago
  I'm thinking every house has its own panels, and its own batteries. Grid is optional. You'll have to be more careful about energy usage perhaps, and maybe personally invest up-front for enough battery and power storage. Maybe the grid is still connected and you can sell excess power, or connect in an emergency (maybe it's expensive?). I do have very little reason to doubt that costs for batteries won't come down drastically in the future. If it doesn't, it might just be an investment you make when owning a home. Just thinking out loud here.
forum_ghost 5y ago
Some current traditional reactor designs take 5 years. Some SMR designs from 500 days to 2-3 years. In any case, let's assume for the sake of the argument, that our industrial goes up 100x in energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Type_I_civilization_methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Type_I_civiliz... Can you run that on batteries, that are fundamentally constrained due to ion weight, and therefore are ultimately capped(page 2): https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/781/4/042023/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/781/4/0... Any significantly sized industry will require dense energy, situated nearby. There is a reason why China is building more nukes in the next 15 years, than the totality in existence globally today. Any other approach is Malthusianism.

Doesn't it take around a decade to build a new reactor? Just wondering if by the time new reactors are built, they're overtaken by cheaper battery storage and solar rooftops.

poutine 5y ago

The US Navy has built hundreds of nuclear reactors in much shorter timeframes. There's nothing intrinsic about nuclear that demands such long builds. It'd need to be done at a societal level with some sort of standardization and mass industrial process. The French more or less did this for their nukes for instance.

forum_ghost 5y ago
The reason for long duration is regulations and inspections. Navy has a lot fewer constraints in that aspect.
- poutine 5y ago
  And yet the Navy has a pretty good safety record.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    As far as we know.

sofixa 5y ago

Battery storage is still hugely impractical on the scale required to keep a grid stable, even if we assume ( huge assumptions) that battery building capacity can keep up and be affordable. Also, batteries need to be changed due do depletion much more frequently than a nuclear reactor.

ericmay 5y ago
I'm thinking every house has its own panels, and its own batteries. Grid is optional. You'll have to be more careful about energy usage perhaps, and maybe personally invest up-front for enough battery and power storage. Maybe the grid is still connected and you can sell excess power, or connect in an emergency (maybe it's expensive?). I do have very little reason to doubt that costs for batteries won't come down drastically in the future. If it doesn't, it might just be an investment you make when owning a home. Just thinking out loud here.

forum_ghost 5y ago

Some current traditional reactor designs take 5 years. Some SMR designs from 500 days to 2-3 years. In any case, let's assume for the sake of the argument, that our industrial goes up 100x in energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Type_I_civilization_methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Type_I_civiliz... Can you run that on batteries, that are fundamentally constrained due to ion weight, and therefore are ultimately capped(page 2): https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/781/4/042023/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/781/4/0... Any significantly sized industry will require dense energy, situated nearby. There is a reason why China is building more nukes in the next 15 years, than the totality in existence globally today. Any other approach is Malthusianism.