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.

▲

homeonthemtn 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

kjs3 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

sudoshred 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nuclear has advantages, but no one will vote in favor of a small chance of nearby catastrophe… given the choice.

▲

kjs3 11 hours ago | parent [-]

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 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	burnt-resistor 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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.

▲

credit_guy 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...

▲

patapong 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I see it as an issue of path dependency - we had the option to invest in nuclear but did not. Instead we invested in solar, wind and battery. Because of this, the latter is now the better alternative, and it makes more sense to further capitalize on that path rather than "reviving" a previous path for untold billions and tens of years.

▲

pstuart 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Feel free to place an SMR in your neighborhood on a flatbed truck guarded only by one part-time security guard.

	▲	pstuart 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I wasn't suggesting that approach, but yes, security will always be a concern.

▲

kjs3 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

Workaccount2 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 11 hours ago | parent [-]

People say that, but which regulations are the problem? Nobody ever suggests what exact changes need to be made.

	▲	burnt-resistor 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

tjmc 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

	▲	privatelypublic 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

mrheosuper 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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