3 ms·

1. That turns out not to be the case. Yes, nuclear currently is not built very efficiently, but the efficiency of the plants is so amazing that they are quite

1. That turns out not to be the case. Yes, nuclear currently is not built very efficiently, but the efficiency of the plants is so amazing that they are quite competitive. 2. There are several companies that are planning to build reactors in factories. Rolls-Royce is one. I was wondering where they're going to put all those reactors, and the only reasonable answer I could find was upgrading old coal plants. In fact, that appears to be exactly the plan: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rolls-royce-in-talks-to-build-mini-nukes-in-ukraine/ar-AA1lDv0n https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rolls-royce-in-talks-t... Pretty cool, when you think of it: all that big and heavy custom infrastructure is already in place. The reactor is built in a factory and shipped there. And there are a LOT of coal powered plants in the world about to be or already decommissioned.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
I am not anti-nuclear. I am anti-1970s-era-nuclear because I see no path by which large bespoke concrete reactors with enormous containment vessels are going to achieve the grid transformation we need on the timescales we need it by. At least not without a WWII level of government involvement, which doesn’t seem politically practical (not even in China, which is doing better than most.) Modular reactors are at least theoretically feasible. The only question right now is whether they’ll make it from theory to multi-TW deployment before battery storage eats their economic lunch. Over a 20-30 year timeframe that’s not an easy call, though I would personally bet on batteries.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  I agree that factory-built reactors are a great way forward, and with so many companies now working on the problem, it seems very likely that at least one will make it happen. I wish we already had them, because then a lot of these discussions would be moot. However, even with the current somewhat crazy approach to building, nuclear energy is still quite competitive, and without peer for providing reliable, stable grid-level power. Which we absolutely need.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

I am not anti-nuclear. I am anti-1970s-era-nuclear because I see no path by which large bespoke concrete reactors with enormous containment vessels are going to achieve the grid transformation we need on the timescales we need it by. At least not without a WWII level of government involvement, which doesn’t seem politically practical (not even in China, which is doing better than most.) Modular reactors are at least theoretically feasible. The only question right now is whether they’ll make it from theory to multi-TW deployment before battery storage eats their economic lunch. Over a 20-30 year timeframe that’s not an easy call, though I would personally bet on batteries.

mpweiher 3y ago
I agree that factory-built reactors are a great way forward, and with so many companies now working on the problem, it seems very likely that at least one will make it happen. I wish we already had them, because then a lot of these discussions would be moot. However, even with the current somewhat crazy approach to building, nuclear energy is still quite competitive, and without peer for providing reliable, stable grid-level power. Which we absolutely need.