6 ms·
A major reason nuclear plants are super expensive is because we do it so rarely Every reactor and every plant is bespoke, even if they are based on a common "d
by mixdup 1y ago
A major reason nuclear plants are super expensive is because we do it so rarely
Every reactor and every plant is bespoke, even if they are based on a common "design" each instance is different enough that every project has to be managed from the ground up as a new thing, you get certified only on a single plant, operators can't move from plant to plant without recertification, etc
Part of that is because they are so big and massive, and take a long time to build. If we'd build smaller, modular reactors that are literally exactly the same every single time you would begin to get economies of scale, you'd be able to get by without having to build a complete replica for training every time, and by being smaller you'd get to value delivery much quicker reducing the finance costs, which would then let you plow the profits from Reactor A into Reactor B's construction
- nicce 1y agoIt isn't that rare in general - if the U.S. opens the secrets of nuclear submarines - we had had mini reactors for decades.
- _aavaa_ 1y agoThe problem is economics. Just because the Us built a fleet does not mean that they are economical once put in a non-military application.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- tick_tock_tick 1y agoI'd be fine with us just having the USA navy operate them we build them for carriers and subs just double or triple the order and plug em into the grid.
- fmajid 1y agoAnd the technology is incredibly mature, submarine reactors were some of the first reactors, period.
- quotemstr 1y agoSubmarine reactors run on super high enriched fuel instantly one could instantly repurpose into a bomb. Lots of gen 4 and 5 reactor designs that combine low cost, compact footprint, and running on less expensive and carefully controlled fuel.
- nicce 1y agoFrench have some LEU submarines. They seem to be pretty good on paper. Needs refueling every ten years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffren-class_submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffren-class_submarine
- quotemstr 1y agoCool! Thanks
- pyrale 1y agoFrance also built full-sized commercial plants rather than batteries of small reactors. That's because scale matters for efficient production.
- nicce 1y agoThat is rapidly changing. https://onu-vienne.delegfrance.org/Nuclear-power-and-SMR-are-central-to-the-France-2030-investment-plan https://onu-vienne.delegfrance.org/Nuclear-power-and-SMR-are... https://regulation-oversight.asnr.fr/oversight/small-modular-reactors/the-small-modular-reactors-smr https://regulation-oversight.asnr.fr/oversight/small-modular...
- croes 1y agoAnd they are heavily guarded. In the current political climate I prefer energy sources that don’t cause severe damage if sabotaged. Did you hear the worries in Ukraine that Russia could hit a wind turbine with a rocket?
- mixdup 1y agoThe DoD is not exactly known for great efficiency and getting the most value for money
- nradov 1y agoSecrecy isn't the obstacle here. Naval reactors are optimized for combat performance, costs be damned. They aren't economically efficient for commercial power generation.
- nicce 1y agoAt least Russia is doing fine with SMRs, thought the fuel enrichment level is around 20%. They are building new reactors all the time and they seem pretty efficient. E.g. they have even floating nuclear plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov
- jasonwatkinspdx 1y agoTotal non starter. Nuclear submarine power plants are not in any way a technology useful for utility scale power generation. To start with they use fuel enriched to weapons grade. They aren't cost effective vs the amount of power produced, and the designs don't scale up to utility scale power. Submarine plants are not some sort of miracle SMR we can just roll out. The Navy is willing to page cost premiums a utility company cannot, because for the Navy it's about having a necessary capability. There's no economic break even to consider.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bobmcnamara 1y agoI thought I'd mention that ship supplied short power has been a thing for ages. USS Daniel Webster even trained for this for new years eve apocalypse nothingburger. And its almost always been used for only powering something critical. Today's subs are <10MW. Nothing for utility scale. I can't imagine the economics are ever good. More of a: we've already got this boat. https://thenaptimeauthor.wordpress.com/2021/04/09/the-uss-lexington-aircraft-carrier-and-temporary-power-plant/ https://thenaptimeauthor.wordpress.com/2021/04/09/the-uss-le... https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/11/26/A-nuclear-submarine-was-put-on-notice-today-for/2890407134800/ https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/11/26/A-nuclear-submarine-... There are some floating PWRs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_pow...
- ciconia 1y agoExactly. What is needed is a SpaceX-like enterprise, where the engineering effort is concentrated in building economies of scale. To me it's clear that nuclear energy's pros largely outweigh the cons, and that it is a perfect complement to solar and wind power generation.
- crooked-v 1y agoI really don't want a SpaceX-like attitude to radioactive material.
- lostlogin 1y agoA nuclear Musk would be interesting.
- tencentshill 1y agoWe can't blow up nuclear reactors to learn how they failed like spaceX does with rockets.
- charcircuit 1y agoSure we can, just not out in the open with a bunch of spectators.
- kotaKat 1y ago... Sooooo... time to fire back up the old range at Bikini Atoll?
- jraph 1y ago> What is needed is a SpaceX-like enterprise I'm not sure. They have more injuries per worker than their competition [1]. Space should already not be "let's work too fast at safety's cost", nuclear really can't. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/18/spacex-worker-injury-rates-at-starbase-outpace-industry-rivals/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/18/spacex-worker-injury-rates...
- ViewTrick1002 1y agoWe’ve been trying to build ”SMR”s since the 1950s and a bunch has been built throughout the decades. https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors-2650272535 https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/the-forgotten-history-of-small... The problem is: who pays for the hundreds of prototypes before the ”process” has worked?
- cpach 1y agoThere are some companies that are trying to get SMRs up and running. https://www.ans.org/news/2025-02-05/article-6744/new-swedish-test-facility-paves-the-way-for-first-smr/ https://www.ans.org/news/2025-02-05/article-6744/new-swedish... We’ll see how it goes.
- throw0101a 1y ago> A major reason nuclear plants are super expensive is because we do it so rarely Once you have your supply chain running, and PM/labour experience, things can run fairly quickly. In the 1980s and '90s Japan was starting a new nuclear plant every 1-2 years, and finishing them in 5: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... France built 40 in a decade: * https://worksinprogress.co/issue/liberte-egalite-radioactivite/ https://worksinprogress.co/issue/liberte-egalite-radioactivi... More recently, Vogtle Unit 3 was expensive AF, but Unit 4 cost 30% less (though still not cheap).
- ZeroGravitas 1y agoGlobal rollout of wind and solar are accelerating past nuclear's records: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/solar-wind-nuclear-rates https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/solar-wind-nuclear...
- preisschild 1y ago> If we'd build smaller, modular reactors that are literally exactly the same every single time you would begin to get economies of scale You can also build standardized, modular LARGE nuclear power reactors. The French and the Japanese did it and managed to builds lots of large reactors with relatively short build times