3 ms·
> If this were the / a major factor in cost competitiveness, we'd expect to see much higher uptake of nuclear fission power plants in places where, as you might
by stcredzero 4y ago
> If this were the / a major factor in cost competitiveness, we'd expect to see much higher uptake of nuclear fission power plants in places where, as you might say, those things are disregarded (to varying degrees).
Aircraft carriers and submarines.
- gumby 4y agoI STM reading (via HN!) that submarine nuke plants are designed not to require (or even have the affordances for) significant maintenance — that when they are “done” (fuel spent?) the power plant is discarded. If this is in fact the case I can imagine it would make for a more reliable and less expensive device. The economics of nuclear powered subs is quite different from a commercial product. But it’s interesting to consider. (And just for fun: imagine what effect a “right to repair” law would have…)
- Jedd 4y agoGood points. In addition, military spend capabilities will more readily compensate for the other two sides of the project management triangle. And AIUI a lot of those systems, once initial development occurred, were cookie-cutter / evolutionary designs. I also understand the mini-reactors for seafaring vessels are much less efficient - but they don't need to be hugely efficient, primarily for the reason you mention. In any case, I expect the regulatory-driven quality of those devices is ridiculously high. Well the USA systems at least -- obviously Russia had a much less pleasant experience with small reactors on submarines.
- throwaway2037 4y agoYes, the cost per MWh must be insane. Any nation building nuclear-powered subs and carriers have essentially unlimited R&D and construction budgets.
- cagenut 4y agothat only further proves the point, those cases may have more lax safety thresholds but they still wind up wildly over budget all the time.