this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
257 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

59151 readers
3278 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."

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (13 children)

Nuclear fanboys are strange! The won't let it go.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

And yet, I remain bullish.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Lemy has such a hard on against nuclear. I'm seeing reports by antinuclear think tank grifters shoved in my face almost daily...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I've seen opinions very strongly in both directions on here. I'm very pro-nuclear, but the largest issues they face is always bureaucracy. It sucks that an artificial thing is what's stopping then usually, but it is true. We need some protections to keep things safe, but it seems too harsh for nuclear compared to the dangers it presents opposed to the dangers of other power sources.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Absolutely, and it's by design by candid admission of environmentalist organizations and green parties. Their objective was over regulating the industry beyond any rationality and they succeeded.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

For this particular design, they could have powered the earth by connecting turbines to the eyes of every engineer and project manager from us all rolling them in the back of our heads upon hearing “no cost overruns or delays”.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 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 cell and a long lived nuclear material could maybe get a little closer price wise.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (13 children)

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

Nukeheads are insane

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

That's some real 1950s futurism.

Ford proposed a car with a nuclear reactor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›