this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
394 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59596 readers
4799 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 9 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 semi-conductive and a long lived nuclear material could maybe get a little closer price wise.

[–] Sidyctism2@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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

Nukeheads are insane

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 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

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 2 points 5 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 -1 points 5 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 5 months ago (1 children)

Thoughts on CO from malfunctioning boilers?

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Boilers were, in fact, mentioned earlier. And have a failure mode where CO builds up for and is undetectable without an alarm. Just like the oh so dangerous nuclear. Where's your condemnation of boilers?

Fun fact: coal plants emit more radioactive waste per unit energy than nuclear plants, and its just vented into the atmosphere!

I swear people run on emotion only when nuclear is brought up.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago

I’m not engaging on this.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works -4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I wouldn't mind one in my basement... If I had a basement. But I do have a nice shed, where a 30MW reactor would fit nicely.

Nukeheads are insane

That's your opinion. My opinion is that we need distributed power generation that can handle baseload. And neither solar nor wind can do that. My personal experience is, that our wind turbine usually doesn't spin for several periods of up to 10 days in December through March. And energy storage with the required capacity still doesn't exist either. Thus the power plants will be burning LNG, biomass, garbage or oil and coal, for the foreseeable future.

A centrally controlled, well regulated, network of small reactors will solve the problem.

[–] hellofriend@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

Look, friend: as much as I like nuclear energy and decentralization of the powder grid, per home reactors could never, ever work. For the simple reason that the majority of us filthy apes are complete idiots. Furthermore, nuclear works currently because it has oversight by educated, trained professionals in a setting where oversight can be effective. Even if you had some sort of travelling nuclear engineer that would check up on your garage reactor, if anything ever went wrong with it then the response time would be too long to adequately deal with the situation.

The only way a distributed network of reactors could work is if it either had massive overhead or if literally everyone had training on the maintenance of a nuclear reactor. And this isn't even mentioning the possibility of adverse weather events potentially damaging the reactor or how the waste would be dealt with.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago

Nuclear reactors are ill-suited for baseloads, because they can't scale their output in an economical way.

You always want the cheapest power available to fulfill demand, which is solar and wind. Those regularly provide more than 100% of the demand. At this point, any other power sources would shut off due to economical reasons. Same with nuclear, nobody wants to buy expensive nuclear energy at peak solar/wind hours, so the reactor needs to turn off. And while some designs can fairly quickly power down, powering up is a different matter and doing either in an economically feasible way is a fantasy right now.

If solar and wind don't provide enough power to satisfy demand, some other power source needs to turn on. Studies have already shown that current-gen battery storage is capable of doing so. Alternatives could be hydrogen or gas power stations. Nuclear isn't an option economically speaking.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

I think the ones small enough for a truck are called micro reactors and they top out at 30 MW