5 ms·

What I don't understand is why they are still not done at scale, i.e. build 10 of these in the same spot and get the economic advantage and especially keep the

• nl 4y ago
  MIT looked at this: > they consider things like the possibility of using a central facility to produce high-performance concrete parts for the plant, as we have shifted to doing for projects like bridge construction. But this concrete is often more expensive than materials poured on site, meaning the higher efficiency of the off-site production would have to more than offset that difference. The material's performance in the environment of a nuclear plant hasn't been tested, so it's not clear whether it's even a solution. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plants-so-expensive-safetys-only-part-of-the-story/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plan...
• recycledmatt 4y ago
  Article says they are building 4 at the same site - there are economies of scale in generation / transmission and in security, but more important building smaller plants may keep the cost overruns lower.
• xorcist 4y ago
  The boring answer is that they're much less fuel efficient than what their size would suggest. As in, almost an order of magnitude. There are both science and engineering challenges to solve before they get competitive with established designs. That's why they haven't taken over.