3 ms·

You'll get a variety of answers. Besides safety concerns, the biggest impediment to nuclear is simple economics. These are massive, capital intensive projects,

You'll get a variety of answers. Besides safety concerns, the biggest impediment to nuclear is simple economics. These are massive, capital intensive projects, with very long timelines. I wish I could dig it up easily but in the nuclear thread the other day an engineer posted an interesting retrospective analysis of what sort of engineering projects were likely to go massively over time and budget. Guess what was at the top of the list. While nuclear proponents would like to place blame solely on what they consider excessive regulation or by demonizing environmental activists, the reality is that investment dried up for nuclear because the bean counters saw the ROI and timeline was bad compared to alternatives. When you ask this same faction how to fix that they'll say small modular reactors, etc. That would be great if it existed. It doesn't. People have been trying to make it work for decades, NuScale the latest. I was bullish on NuScale when they started; it really looked like they'd cracked the code. Now they're floundering too. I would be ecstatic if someone creates these great SMR's that are economic, but I'm not holding my breath. There's no doubt nuclear needs to be part of the future energy mix, but the idea that all we have to do is get aggressive with nuclear and our problems are solved is navie nonsense imo.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
Isnt this kinda shit wht multilateral treaties and international agreements exist to address? Do they just need a tad more leverage in material terms to ensure future moron governments' feet are held to the fire to the extent they cannot escape rare or what do you think is the ideal enforcement mechanism?
southernplaces7 3y ago
>When you ask this same faction how to fix that they'll say small modular reactors, etc. That would be great if it existed. It doesn't. So I guess the dozens of military nuclear submarines and a dozen or so advanced aircraft carriers in the world are powered by unicorns and leprechauns? I don't know the advanced mechanics of navy reactors, but something that generates 165 megawatts, while fitting inside a 360-foot-long, 35-foot-wide tube and still leaving room to house 130 people comfortably along with all their life support for weeks seems pretty usable as a small reactor. (the A1B reactor on the latest USN carriers takes things up to 700MW of thermal power.)
- q1w2 3y ago
  Navy reactors are not subject to environmentalist lawsuits and local political delays. That's why they're cheap.
- kibwen 3y ago
  The US Navy's demand for reactors is insensitive to cost. The tactical considerations of needing to refuel only once per decade (and in the case of subs, being quiet) outweighs all other factors. What works in the context of the navy doesn't really have a bearing in the context of commercial power generation.
  - southernplaces7 3y ago
    And you're saying there's no means by which more economical versions of these could be built? With virtually all technologies, even complex, difficult ones, commercialization does create cost-cutting innovations. A modular, compact version of USN carrier/sub reactors without the worries about noise or extremely long refuel cycles seems feasible if the fundamental technology is already there and waiting to be (I hate this tech phrase so much but here it goes)... "disrupted"....
    - kibwen 3y ago
      But the problem is that we know how to make reactors more economical: you make them larger. Maybe some smart people will find a way to bend the curve; I wish them luck. However, be careful in assuming that the aforementioned "cost-cutting innovations" via commercialization represent a free lunch. The sad fact is, most of the cost-savings from commercialization come from reducing the quality of the product, which is the one thing we don't want to compromise on when it comes to nuclear reactors.
- dalyons 3y ago
  To state the obvious, navy reactors do not have to be economical. No one is saying it’s not possible to build small reactors, it obviously is. just not for a cost or cost per watt that anyone is prepared to pay.

Obscurity4340 3y ago

Isnt this kinda shit wht multilateral treaties and international agreements exist to address? Do they just need a tad more leverage in material terms to ensure future moron governments' feet are held to the fire to the extent they cannot escape rare or what do you think is the ideal enforcement mechanism?

southernplaces7 3y ago

>When you ask this same faction how to fix that they'll say small modular reactors, etc. That would be great if it existed. It doesn't. So I guess the dozens of military nuclear submarines and a dozen or so advanced aircraft carriers in the world are powered by unicorns and leprechauns? I don't know the advanced mechanics of navy reactors, but something that generates 165 megawatts, while fitting inside a 360-foot-long, 35-foot-wide tube and still leaving room to house 130 people comfortably along with all their life support for weeks seems pretty usable as a small reactor. (the A1B reactor on the latest USN carriers takes things up to 700MW of thermal power.)

q1w2 3y ago
Navy reactors are not subject to environmentalist lawsuits and local political delays. That's why they're cheap.
kibwen 3y ago
The US Navy's demand for reactors is insensitive to cost. The tactical considerations of needing to refuel only once per decade (and in the case of subs, being quiet) outweighs all other factors. What works in the context of the navy doesn't really have a bearing in the context of commercial power generation.
- southernplaces7 3y ago
  And you're saying there's no means by which more economical versions of these could be built? With virtually all technologies, even complex, difficult ones, commercialization does create cost-cutting innovations. A modular, compact version of USN carrier/sub reactors without the worries about noise or extremely long refuel cycles seems feasible if the fundamental technology is already there and waiting to be (I hate this tech phrase so much but here it goes)... "disrupted"....
  - kibwen 3y ago
    But the problem is that we know how to make reactors more economical: you make them larger. Maybe some smart people will find a way to bend the curve; I wish them luck. However, be careful in assuming that the aforementioned "cost-cutting innovations" via commercialization represent a free lunch. The sad fact is, most of the cost-savings from commercialization come from reducing the quality of the product, which is the one thing we don't want to compromise on when it comes to nuclear reactors.
dalyons 3y ago
To state the obvious, navy reactors do not have to be economical. No one is saying it’s not possible to build small reactors, it obviously is. just not for a cost or cost per watt that anyone is prepared to pay.