2 ms·
SMRs never made any sense. They have all the same issue as "large" PWRs but they don't have the advantage of scale. Classic PWRs are big, but they produce a lot
by cyberax 2y ago
SMRs never made any sense. They have all the same issue as "large" PWRs but they don't have the advantage of scale. Classic PWRs are big, but they produce a lot.
SMRs end up requiring exactly the same infrastructure as large-scale reactors, but they produce only a fraction of power. The largest PWRs will produce 1.6GW, but SMRs are designed for <100MW. So you need around 20 SMRs to replace _one_ large PWR.
The math just doesn't work out.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoNow do it with economies of scale and transmission losses.
- cyberax 2y agoTransmission losses are single-digit percentages. Economy of scale can lower the price a bit, but not by an order of magnitude.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Economy of scale can lower the price a bit, but not by an order of magnitude Based on what? Orders of magnitude are the norm in manufacturing. We’re seeing it in batteries right now.
- cyberax 2y agoBased on the amount of labor and specialized equipment. And don't forget, SMRs need to be at least 2 orders of magnitude cheaper for your hare-brained idea of "dispoasable reactors" to work.