6 ms·

Aren't these factory built? Seems like they could start building and then work out buyers if they're as promising as people make out.

by foota 4y ago

LatteLazy 4y ago
That's fine if you have a few 10s of billions to risk building products that might never be bought. There are 2 key issues here: you have to convince people these will work for a decade plus without issue despite being new AND you have to convince a large number of people (companies, municipalities etc) (>100 to make the factory viable and get the economies of scale) who actually have the cash to buy them. This is a key moat for a lot of tech: anyone could design a decent airliner. Can you convince enough airlines to order them to make it viable to mass manufacturer them, despite having no name or track record? Hence Boeing and Airbus remain the only games in town (and Airbus only got there with a lot of state assistance).
Overtonwindow 4y ago
I think what that person means is that to get this actually built, is likely going to take at least 5 to 10 years of regulatory and government action. On the local level. That's not counting anyone that might throw up roadblocks, such as environmental, and safety. That could easily extend this out another five or 10 years. If a company wanted to build this reactor today, speaking as a government bureaucrat, you are looking at least 10 years before they even break ground.
- justahuman74 4y ago
  Are there places were they'd receive less regulation, such as on federal land or a military base?
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Federal land and less regulation are closer to antonyms than synonyms. Federal government contracts tend to be more involved than most. The military might consider a reactor like this for remote installations. I think they've had similar ideas/tests in the past. Not sure those ever panned out though.
    - knute 4y ago
      There were nuclear reactors run by the military in Antarctica, Greenland, and Alaska in the late 60s and early 70s, but they were all shut down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program#List_of_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program#Lis...
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        For reasons. Not regulation, and not hippies.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > going to take at least 5 to 10 years of regulatory and government action. On the local level On the coasts, sure. In Wyoming, Texas or New Mexico, much quicker [1]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/uemplystate.php https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/uemplystate.ph...

Aren't these factory built? Seems like they could start building and then work out buyers if they're as promising as people make out.

by foota 4y ago

Aren't these factory built? Seems like they could start building and then work out buyers if they're as promising as people make out.

LatteLazy 4y ago

That's fine if you have a few 10s of billions to risk building products that might never be bought. There are 2 key issues here: you have to convince people these will work for a decade plus without issue despite being new AND you have to convince a large number of people (companies, municipalities etc) (>100 to make the factory viable and get the economies of scale) who actually have the cash to buy them. This is a key moat for a lot of tech: anyone could design a decent airliner. Can you convince enough airlines to order them to make it viable to mass manufacturer them, despite having no name or track record? Hence Boeing and Airbus remain the only games in town (and Airbus only got there with a lot of state assistance).

Overtonwindow 4y ago

I think what that person means is that to get this actually built, is likely going to take at least 5 to 10 years of regulatory and government action. On the local level. That's not counting anyone that might throw up roadblocks, such as environmental, and safety. That could easily extend this out another five or 10 years. If a company wanted to build this reactor today, speaking as a government bureaucrat, you are looking at least 10 years before they even break ground.

justahuman74 4y ago
Are there places were they'd receive less regulation, such as on federal land or a military base?
- giantg2 4y ago
  Federal land and less regulation are closer to antonyms than synonyms. Federal government contracts tend to be more involved than most. The military might consider a reactor like this for remote installations. I think they've had similar ideas/tests in the past. Not sure those ever panned out though.
  - knute 4y ago
    There were nuclear reactors run by the military in Antarctica, Greenland, and Alaska in the late 60s and early 70s, but they were all shut down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program#List_of_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program#Lis...
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      For reasons. Not regulation, and not hippies.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> going to take at least 5 to 10 years of regulatory and government action. On the local level On the coasts, sure. In Wyoming, Texas or New Mexico, much quicker [1]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/uemplystate.php https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/uemplystate.ph...