12 ms·

As much as I am a proponent of nuclear, it's time has past. It's already non-competitive with solar + battery for any new start builds. I doubt a single commer

As much as I am a proponent of nuclear, it's time has past. It's already non-competitive with solar + battery for any new start builds. I doubt a single commercial installation would exist of these microreactors before battery and solar/battery costs drop another 50-80%. Even hydro will have issues competing in 20 years.

mrheosuper 1y ago
Why not both, you don't want to put all egg in 1 basket.
homeonthemtn 1y ago
As some one with a long winter, I assure you solar is not a cure-all, especially if you receive significant snow or low altitude cloud cover. Batteries, as well, are impacted by the cold in their own ways. Is a tiny reactor the answer? Probably not. But energy at a constant rate all year round that also self warms? That sounds pretty good to me.
- sudoshred 1y ago
  Nuclear has advantages, but no one will vote in favor of a small chance of nearby catastrophe… given the choice.
  - kjs3 1y ago
    That's an utterly ridiculous assertion (at least in the US). All one needs to do is claim "job creation" and "increase the tax base" and there will be thousands of small/mid sized town desperately courting your investment dollars, even if you're up front about "this will probably poison your town for centuries and turn your kids into zombies".
    - toast0 1y ago
      If that were enough, I think we'd have a lot more nuclear plants in construction. The problem with this theory is it takes too long between the step where the boosters sell the town with job creation and when the plant can't be cancelled. If you get a city on board today, chances are you won't have a permit in 10 years, and you need to keep them on board the whole time until the permit is issued or they'll derail the permit. It's better to keep them on board at least until the reactor is fueled... but once it's fueled, the jobs engine will probably sustain itself.
      - kjs3 1y ago
        My dad was a civil engineer with a specialty in hazardous waste handling. 10 years was not at unreasonable to get a landfill permitted, built and operational, and there's little new technology involved (unlike hypothetical micro-reactors). And yet, they always had a line of small towns lined up hoping to get one. I think you underestimate how long it takes getting anything substantial and potentially hazardous built in a municipal context.
    - burnt-resistor 1y ago
      Giga datacenters plopped down in unincorporated areas and small towns will bribe local officials, suck up all the water, raise local electricity rates, pollute the air with on-site natural gas generators, and given the opportunity, play Russian roulette with SMRs.
      - kjs3 1y ago
        Today it's datacenters. Used to be Wallmart. Same MO.
        burnt-resistor 1y ago
        What is Wallmart? Do they sell walls. ;) Actually, these datacenters are much, much worse in different ways if you'd consider they are much bigger, louder, and resource-intensive. While hypermarts put local business out of business and take up comparatively less land including parking lots (while still being huge), their effects are bad but in different ways, especially given they abuse low wage workers who require government subsidies (indirect corporate welfare) and when they leave suddenly they create food deserts.
        kjs3 1y ago
        I was thinking more of how Wallmart also has a history of 'influencing' local officials to overlook the damage being done, as well as getting small towns to take on huge debt loads for 'required' infrastructure upgrades, all in the hopes that there will be a windfall when they set up shop. But sure, they suck in other ways and if you need some relative shittyness metric then ok I guess.
- kjs3 1y ago
  Isn't that a power transfer problem? By that, I mean wouldn't the money spent to invent (they don't exist) these 'mini-reactors' be better spent optimizing the transfer and storage capability of solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power generation to non-optimal locations? I mean, sure, I probably want a nice chunk of fissionables at McMurdo Station, maybe someplace like Svalbard, but as a general solution it seems a poor investment.
  - homeonthemtn 1y ago
    You can do both and all at once. There's not really a lack of funding, just a lack of attention.
    - kjs3 1y ago
      Efficient transfer and storage of power from site of generation to site of use has been a topic of intense attention practically since the beginning of electrical generation, back to the Westinghouse v. Tesla AC/DC 'war'. I suspect reality of funding and attention are more complicated than you think.
tjmc 1y ago
I can see a future for microreactors powering container ships. Outside nuclear subs and aircraft carriers there are already nuclear powered icebreakers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker
- privatelypublic 1y ago
  Yea, micro reactors sound like a great idea for pollution control. But, given how many ships get seized every year trying to fake inspections and a dozen other things- the only way this works out is a modern version of Clipper ships (with less sinkings). Large premiums for getting your cargo across the ocean faster. How much faster, is for somebody more knowledgeable than me to answer. And now politics comes into play: these ships would have to not only have significant permanent armament, but given significant latitude to use lethal force.
credit_guy 1y ago
I'm also a proponent of nuclear. And I agree that nuclear is not competitive with solar. But we haven't really invested in nuclear for more than 4 decades now. Nuclear is just a technology. There is no reason to think nuclear capital costs need to be forever locked at the current levels. China has at least three times lower capital costs for nuclear power plants (judging by the cost of the Karachi units 2-3 at $9.5 BN [1] vs the Vogtle units 3-4 at $36.8 BN [2]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_Nuclear_Power_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_Nuclear_Power_Complex [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...
- kjs3 1y ago
  China has at least three times lower capital costs for nuclear power plants Well, yes. When consider 'health and safety' as a 'down on the priority list' requirement, there are any number of cost cutting opportunities available to you.
- pstuart 1y ago
  Bespoke behemoth power plants may have the advantage size in the ability to generate power but they seem to be impossible to bring in on schedule and under budget. Small Modular Reactors should upend that hegemony through mass production but so far still can't compete. SMRs would be perfect for converting every single existing coal fired plant and allow our power generation to go carbon free in record time. I'm pro-renewables but believe we need as many energy options as possible.
  - burnt-resistor 1y ago
    Feel free to place an SMR in your neighborhood on a flatbed truck guarded only by one part-time security guard.
    - pstuart 1y ago
      I wasn't suggesting that approach, but yes, security will always be a concern.
Workaccount2 1y ago
Nuclear sucks because the regulatory environment is totally insane. If the NRC went over the regulations with a bit of common sense, reactors would be dramatically less expensive.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  People say that, but which regulations are the problem? Nobody ever suggests what exact changes need to be made.
  - burnt-resistor 1y ago
    Perhaps they'd like another Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima instead. It's ignorant people who complain about "regulations" as a monolithic, monochromatic evil MacGuffin that exist merely to stop progress rather than encompassing health and safety regulations written in blood and graves. I remember my coworker who had to destructively flame test half of the wire nuts he sold to a nuclear energy concern by verifying they self-extinguished within X seconds. Rigor might be expensive, but lives, health, and peace of mind are worth more even if techbros and billionaires don't think so.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxDd3Whl_9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxDd3Whl_9s I also don't want to give the impression that I watched this one video and know ride around on a high horse. My company has a nuclear division, and while I am not part of it, I am totally aware of the struggles they have.
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      The president's executive order requires what appears to be a completely overhaul of the NRC by November of next year. I guess we'll see how that goes. Solar, wind, and battery tech are getting so cheap so fast, it's hard to know whether this will be enough to make nuclear economical.
BrandoElFollito 1y ago
Where you are located impacts very much this stance.

mrheosuper 1y ago

Why not both, you don't want to put all egg in 1 basket.

homeonthemtn 1y ago

As some one with a long winter, I assure you solar is not a cure-all, especially if you receive significant snow or low altitude cloud cover. Batteries, as well, are impacted by the cold in their own ways. Is a tiny reactor the answer? Probably not. But energy at a constant rate all year round that also self warms? That sounds pretty good to me.

sudoshred 1y ago
Nuclear has advantages, but no one will vote in favor of a small chance of nearby catastrophe… given the choice.
- kjs3 1y ago
  That's an utterly ridiculous assertion (at least in the US). All one needs to do is claim "job creation" and "increase the tax base" and there will be thousands of small/mid sized town desperately courting your investment dollars, even if you're up front about "this will probably poison your town for centuries and turn your kids into zombies".
  - toast0 1y ago
    If that were enough, I think we'd have a lot more nuclear plants in construction. The problem with this theory is it takes too long between the step where the boosters sell the town with job creation and when the plant can't be cancelled. If you get a city on board today, chances are you won't have a permit in 10 years, and you need to keep them on board the whole time until the permit is issued or they'll derail the permit. It's better to keep them on board at least until the reactor is fueled... but once it's fueled, the jobs engine will probably sustain itself.
    - kjs3 1y ago
      My dad was a civil engineer with a specialty in hazardous waste handling. 10 years was not at unreasonable to get a landfill permitted, built and operational, and there's little new technology involved (unlike hypothetical micro-reactors). And yet, they always had a line of small towns lined up hoping to get one. I think you underestimate how long it takes getting anything substantial and potentially hazardous built in a municipal context.
  - burnt-resistor 1y ago
    Giga datacenters plopped down in unincorporated areas and small towns will bribe local officials, suck up all the water, raise local electricity rates, pollute the air with on-site natural gas generators, and given the opportunity, play Russian roulette with SMRs.
    - kjs3 1y ago
      Today it's datacenters. Used to be Wallmart. Same MO.
      - burnt-resistor 1y ago
        What is Wallmart? Do they sell walls. ;) Actually, these datacenters are much, much worse in different ways if you'd consider they are much bigger, louder, and resource-intensive. While hypermarts put local business out of business and take up comparatively less land including parking lots (while still being huge), their effects are bad but in different ways, especially given they abuse low wage workers who require government subsidies (indirect corporate welfare) and when they leave suddenly they create food deserts.
        kjs3 1y ago
        I was thinking more of how Wallmart also has a history of 'influencing' local officials to overlook the damage being done, as well as getting small towns to take on huge debt loads for 'required' infrastructure upgrades, all in the hopes that there will be a windfall when they set up shop. But sure, they suck in other ways and if you need some relative shittyness metric then ok I guess.
kjs3 1y ago
Isn't that a power transfer problem? By that, I mean wouldn't the money spent to invent (they don't exist) these 'mini-reactors' be better spent optimizing the transfer and storage capability of solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power generation to non-optimal locations? I mean, sure, I probably want a nice chunk of fissionables at McMurdo Station, maybe someplace like Svalbard, but as a general solution it seems a poor investment.
- homeonthemtn 1y ago
  You can do both and all at once. There's not really a lack of funding, just a lack of attention.
  - kjs3 1y ago
    Efficient transfer and storage of power from site of generation to site of use has been a topic of intense attention practically since the beginning of electrical generation, back to the Westinghouse v. Tesla AC/DC 'war'. I suspect reality of funding and attention are more complicated than you think.

tjmc 1y ago

I can see a future for microreactors powering container ships. Outside nuclear subs and aircraft carriers there are already nuclear powered icebreakers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker

privatelypublic 1y ago
Yea, micro reactors sound like a great idea for pollution control. But, given how many ships get seized every year trying to fake inspections and a dozen other things- the only way this works out is a modern version of Clipper ships (with less sinkings). Large premiums for getting your cargo across the ocean faster. How much faster, is for somebody more knowledgeable than me to answer. And now politics comes into play: these ships would have to not only have significant permanent armament, but given significant latitude to use lethal force.

credit_guy 1y ago

I'm also a proponent of nuclear. And I agree that nuclear is not competitive with solar. But we haven't really invested in nuclear for more than 4 decades now. Nuclear is just a technology. There is no reason to think nuclear capital costs need to be forever locked at the current levels. China has at least three times lower capital costs for nuclear power plants (judging by the cost of the Karachi units 2-3 at $9.5 BN [1] vs the Vogtle units 3-4 at $36.8 BN [2]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_Nuclear_Power_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_Nuclear_Power_Complex [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...

kjs3 1y ago
China has at least three times lower capital costs for nuclear power plants Well, yes. When consider 'health and safety' as a 'down on the priority list' requirement, there are any number of cost cutting opportunities available to you.
pstuart 1y ago
Bespoke behemoth power plants may have the advantage size in the ability to generate power but they seem to be impossible to bring in on schedule and under budget. Small Modular Reactors should upend that hegemony through mass production but so far still can't compete. SMRs would be perfect for converting every single existing coal fired plant and allow our power generation to go carbon free in record time. I'm pro-renewables but believe we need as many energy options as possible.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Feel free to place an SMR in your neighborhood on a flatbed truck guarded only by one part-time security guard.
  - pstuart 1y ago
    I wasn't suggesting that approach, but yes, security will always be a concern.

Workaccount2 1y ago

Nuclear sucks because the regulatory environment is totally insane. If the NRC went over the regulations with a bit of common sense, reactors would be dramatically less expensive.

amanaplanacanal 1y ago
People say that, but which regulations are the problem? Nobody ever suggests what exact changes need to be made.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Perhaps they'd like another Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima instead. It's ignorant people who complain about "regulations" as a monolithic, monochromatic evil MacGuffin that exist merely to stop progress rather than encompassing health and safety regulations written in blood and graves. I remember my coworker who had to destructively flame test half of the wire nuts he sold to a nuclear energy concern by verifying they self-extinguished within X seconds. Rigor might be expensive, but lives, health, and peace of mind are worth more even if techbros and billionaires don't think so.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxDd3Whl_9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxDd3Whl_9s I also don't want to give the impression that I watched this one video and know ride around on a high horse. My company has a nuclear division, and while I am not part of it, I am totally aware of the struggles they have.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    The president's executive order requires what appears to be a completely overhaul of the NRC by November of next year. I guess we'll see how that goes. Solar, wind, and battery tech are getting so cheap so fast, it's hard to know whether this will be enough to make nuclear economical.

BrandoElFollito 1y ago

Where you are located impacts very much this stance.