this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

58009 readers
3079 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

[T]he report's executive summary certainly gets to the heart of their findings.

"The rhetoric from small modular reactor (SMR) advocates is loud and persistent: This time will be different because the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued large reactor construction projects will not be repeated with the new designs," says the report. "But the few SMRs that have been built (or have been started) paint a different picture – one that looks startlingly similar to the past. Significant construction delays are still the norm and costs have continued to climb."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BrightCandle@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

They are still going for big building size reactors that have site specific details even if the core is built in a "factory". This still doesn't scale well.

I wonder if it can be economical to go smaller still and ship a reactor and power generation (TRG maybe or a small turbine) that then doesn't require much other than connecting wiring and plumbing and its encased in at least one security layer covered in sensors if something goes wrong its all contained. Then its just a single lorry with a box you wire in. That has a chance of being scalable and easy to deploy and I can't help but think there is a market for ~0.5-10 KW reactors if they can get the lowest end down to about $20,000, it would compete OK with solar and wind price wise.

I suspect no one has bothered because the regulatory overhead means it has to be big enough to be worth it and like Wind power scales enormously with the size of the plant. But what I want is a tiny reactor in my basement, add a few batteries for dealing with the duck curve and you have something that will sit there producing power for 25 years and a contract for it be repaired and ultimately collected at end of life.

You can sort of do this today using the Tritium glow sticks and solar cells but it doesn't last long enough and the price is not competitive. Going more directly to the band gap in a silicon or something else semi-conductive and a long lived nuclear material could maybe get a little closer price wise.

[–] Sidyctism2@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You want people to have their own private nuclear reactor in their basement?

Nukeheads are insane

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I sympathized with your statement immediately, but then after thinking about it for a bit, most people basically have controlled pressure bombs (gas-water boilers) and buildings filled with gas pipes that can (and have) wiped out whole city blocks.

It's still not a good idea, obviously, but localized fossil fuels are also ridiculous when you think about it.

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nuclear waste and fuel is dangerous for years and is an invisible hazard. Propane and gas at least only explode once

[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thoughts on CO from malfunctioning boilers?

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The two aren’t even part of the same conversation.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

It builds up for days even months and is an invisible hazard?