4 ms·
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) were supposed to address this concern. Unfortunately even with this strategy it doesn't seem to be able to compete cost-wise in th
by pstuart 2y ago
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) were supposed to address this concern. Unfortunately even with this strategy it doesn't seem to be able to compete cost-wise in the market.
I hope that can be worked out, as I think we'd be well-served by having as many eggs in our energy basket as possible.
- api 2y agoSMRs are still huge compared to putting $10k worth of solar panels on a house. They also require a lot of big expensive infrastructure like reprocessing facilities, expensive safety-escorted transportation, secure facilities, etc.
- pstuart 2y agoYes those things are true; albeit the apple to oranges comparison of a home setup vs community baseload provider. One of the compelling deployment cases is to revamp existing coal fired plants with SMRs, which would be a huge win in addressing climate change. None of this is meant to disparage or dismiss solar and other renewables; it's meant to be complementary.
- api 2y agoWhat I was really getting at was the effect that low incremental cost has on the evolution of the technology. A technology with low incremental unit cost can evolve very rapidly, while high unit cost capital-intensive technologies are slow to evolve. Which will win? Some technologies are inherently high unit cost and capital-intensive. Aerospace is a classic example, and it's why we're still flying on 1970s-tech airplanes and why rockets are just now becoming reusable. Aerospace advances at a crawl because each unit is so expensive.