5 ms·
I'll give that a read too, thanks. One of that article's points was that nuclear plants only succeeded as mega projects, because: 1) they dovetailed with weapo
by lukevi 3y ago
I'll give that a read too, thanks.
One of that article's points was that nuclear plants only succeeded as mega projects, because:
1) they dovetailed with weapons programs so had a huge additional funding pool,
2) big projects add thermal efficiencies that bring the cost per kwh down significantly
3) any project needs near military grade security, which doesn't doesn't suit small sites
- xattt 3y agoOntario will be building an SMR near an existing large-scale nuclear facility. The promo mock-up picture of the SMR shows a Canada Post van driving right up. This is a little absurd, given that the road going up to similar plants have a number of warning signs to turn around if you have no business going there. This includes a very ominous “last chance” sign, probably before paramilitary forces pull you over. I ran into this situation recently when I naïvely went looking for the Nuclear Information Centre (a sort of nuclear mini-museum) that used to be near the gates of Darlington about 25-30 years ago. (1) https://www.opg.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/BWRX-300-rendering.2_2732-980x653.jpg https://www.opg.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/BWRX-300-rend... (2) https://www.opg.com/news-resources/education/visitor-centres/ https://www.opg.com/news-resources/education/visitor-centres...
- rich_sasha 3y agoIs the thermal efficiency really relevant? I always understood the externalities to drive much of the costs. And even if you're building a mega site with military defences, you could still build it by having 10 small reactors. If they are cheaper to build "per megawatt" due to economies of scale, you are still ahead.