← Back to context

Comment by MadrasThorn

20 hours ago

>Rather than reviving the large reactors of the past, the government is focusing on small modular reactors, or SMRs, and other advanced technologies that supporters say could be safer, more flexible and quicker to build.

>The legislation does not authorize the construction of any reactors. Instead, it creates the regulatory foundation needed before future projects can be proposed, assessed and approved.

Giant step for SMRs. I'm hopefull for greater NATO collaboration regarding energy security if SMRs prove commercially viable.

37 comments

MadrasThorn

Reply
orwin  20 hours ago

I don't understand why people are so bullish about SMRs. 25 years ago we were trying to increase reactor size and testing breeders, no we want smaller reactors, for what reason?

  • dguest  20 hours ago

    I always thought it was about commoditization: sure a SMR might cost 10x more per watt in theory but if you can reliably roll them off the production line without having to redesign each iteration and without the cost overrunning by 10x, it pays for itself.

    • stephbook  20 hours ago

      Still doesn't make sense. We could have standardized the old reactors too.

      Radioactive material and a bit of water.. there's no reason to design those things a hundred times. France actually did that.

      France is still shutting down its plants because the rivers are too warm in the summer. As for floating SMBs in the harbour, I don't think climate change will be kind to this idea.

      19 replies →

    • _aavaa_  20 hours ago

      It will reliably cost only 10x, and it theory it will roll of a production line.

      The AP1000 reactors at Vogtle were explicitly marked for the modular construction as a key selling feature, which would reduce time and cost. It came out 20B over budget and 7 years late.

      7 replies →

    • jacquesm  20 hours ago

      There is no economic case for SMR that you couldn't make for a larger one with a massive benefit of economies of scale. SMRs are - in my opinion - a dead end, larger reactors could work well but will be delivered later and likely will still not be profitable on a KWh basis when compared to an equivalent installed base of solar and wind and will most likely be deliver much, much later.

    • oofbey  20 hours ago

      Wright’s law is the only way to reduce costs. It’s a generalization of Moore’s law. The more of anything you build the cheaper it gets. Most products get 10% - 20% cheaper every time total production volume doubles. The most obvious example right now is rockets - launch costs are going down exponentially because we (SpaceX mostly) are doing so much of it we are finally getting economies of scale. SMRs will too, but only if they become popular. It’s a little bit of chicken and egg, but the economics are clear. If lots of people start using SMRs they WILL get cheap. And it’s a form factor where it’s plausible lots of people will.

      1 reply →

  • cyberax  19 hours ago

    Large reactors require unobtanium-class material engineering. Only a few companies in the _world_ can make large reactor vessels.

    In contrast, SMRs are being sold as something that you can weld together in your garage and use them as a replacement for your water heater. And you don't need all those large containment structures and gigawatt-scale turbines.

    This makes it much easier to get funding, as you don't need to show that you have a firm agreement with all the suppliers.

    I don't like this at all, but it _might_ result in us regaining some experience in building nuclear power plants.