3 ms·
Can someone explain the appeal of =small= nuclear reactors to me? Are the manufacturing cost savings the article cites really that much of a game changer? I'd
by JauntTrooper 3y ago
Can someone explain the appeal of =small= nuclear reactors to me? Are the manufacturing cost savings the article cites really that much of a game changer?
I'd love to see us use more nuclear power. I would think =large= power plants would be more efficient though, and would save on things like personnel, security and regulatory costs.
I feel like the biggest risks to a nuclear power plant are the tiny chances for catastrophic failure -- terrorism, earthquakes, tsunamis and human error.
Having 50x these plants seeded close to population centers seems like it would make it more difficult to protect against these risks. I would also imagine most projects would face NIMBY resistance, which would lead to lots of lawyer fees and lengthy permitting timelines if they even get off the ground. What am I missing?
- fragmede 3y agoThere's a certain amount of difficulty in making a nuclear reactor, so going from zero to one (of your specific design of reactor) is going to be very hard. In order for that one to work, there's going to be a ton of mistakes and learning, and after all that, you have one working, very expensive power plant. But because you put your eggs all in one basket, that's basically all you can build for the next few decades. There's no going from 1 -> 10. there's no money, no political will to, and no demand for it, the one plant is just so big. If instead we concentrate on going from 1 -> 10 by building multiple smaller reactors, we get good at building them, and we're forced to productize it just a little bit. Make the machine that makes the machine, as it were. After proving 1 -> 10, then going from 10 -> 100 becomes possible; viable, so other people and places that need it can get one, affordably (well, relatively).