4 ms·
There's a lot of pressure on the industry to emphasize that the designs are "new" and not like ones that failed. Innovation is good, I think, but the reason nuc
by garbagecoder 4y ago
There's a lot of pressure on the industry to emphasize that the designs are "new" and not like ones that failed. Innovation is good, I think, but the reason nuclear is even in the conversation now is because it already has been done, mostly safely, and could be scaled with existing tech. This makes it a decent player for a transition energy source. High cost shoot-the-moon future designs hopefully will never be necessary.
I say this as an absolutely fervently pro-nuclear person. Comparing France and Germany is really all the information you need for this kind of case.
But I don't understand this push for small reactors outside of niche military applications etc.
- pfdietz 4y agoSmall reactors are being pushed because new big reactors in the US are stone cold dead. This is why I call them HMRs, "Hail Mary Reactors". They're nuclear's last desperate chance in the US.
- moloch-hai 4y agoWithout their big constituency in the USDoE mandarinate, SMRs would be equally dead. DoE grants overwhelmingly favor thermal energy sources and storage, probably just because thermal conversion is what they are trained in.
- garbagecoder 4y agoI think you’re maybe wishcasting. The state and federal governments are spending billions to keep Diablo Canyon open after a rush of blood to the head thinking they could close it.
- pfdietz 4y agoI meant of new nuclear construction. Keeping existing plants open is something different.