>commercially operating

And struggling, propped up by taylor-made laws and public money.

>how have so many smart people and companies been duped into seriously considering SMR technology if SMRs apparently break the laws of thermodynamics?

Never said they break the laws of thermodynamics. They are just inefficient and will never be more efficient than alternatives such as... Bigger nuclear reactors.

Or solar.

And how long have you been out there? Have you never seen investors dumping and wasting billions in dead-ends? Never seen a mania before?

Nuclear attracts clever people, but it isn't smart nor wise.

▲

vablings 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think you have a misunderstanding of what a SMR is supposed to be.

Nuclear power plants are eye watering levels of expensive. The require massive scale and cost with lengthy approvals and requirements, the fundamental idea of SMRs is to move that cost and approvals into a smaller scale so that multiple standard units can be produced and deployed in a turnkey situation, they still will be expensive but the time to deploy and cost will be significantly reduced.

We also know SMRs work very well, considering the majority of the US Navy is powered entirely with SMRs and have been for a very long time. Off the top of my head ship power has been exported to local areas for disaster relief

Solar is absolutely fantastic and your average person should not be hawking at solar for your home to offset your power bill. The problem with solar is that you need power 24/7 and solar will not make power in the night.

I don't think the likes of Westinghouse, Siemens, Rolls Royce and GE are duped. They are trying to solve a very hard problem!

	▲	Arodex 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>The problem with solar is that you need power 24/7 and solar will not make power in the night. Ok, question: for the cost of one nuclear power plant, how many batteries can you have? For the cost of the R&D of one next generation nuclear reactor design, how many next generation battery and solar panels technologies can you develop?

▲

john_strinlai 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Never said they break the laws of thermodynamics.

true, you said "gaslight thermodynamics", which i have no idea what that means, so i took a guess at what you were implying.

>never be more efficient than alternatives such as... Bigger nuclear reactors.

is efficiency really the only metric to be considered? i feel like available space, availability of alternatives, time to complete construction, etc. are worthwhile to consider.

>And how long have you been out there? Have you never seen investors dumping and wasting billions in dead-ends? Never seen a mania before?

considering the length of time and sheer number of people, companies, and governments worldwide considering/investing in SMR tech it seems unlikely to be a mania. but i am not an expert. you are talking like you are one, which is why i am asking questions.

▲

Arodex 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>i feel like available space, time to complete construction

All of these favor again bigger reactors.

>considering the length of time and sheer number of people, companies, and governments considering/investing in SMR tech it seems unlikely to be a mania.

All of the Swiss energy companies are asking to be bailed out in advance of the investment in nuclear.

▲

john_strinlai 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>All of these favor again bigger reactors.

how does having less available space favor a bigger reactor?

and how is constructing a bigger reactor faster than constructing a smaller one?

▲

bryanlarsen an hour ago | parent | next [-]

There are two ways of achieving economies of scale: making things bigger or making more of them.

For small quantities, the former is usually more effective -- making things bigger lets you make fewer of them, reducing costs.

For large quantities, a factory can enable insane economies of scale.

SMR proponents are talking about building dozens of reactors. That fits very firmly in the "small quantity" column where economies of scale almost always favor building things bigger.

▲

cauch an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just a guess (I'm not the previous user), but I guess you need to look at the space _per GWh_?

If a big nuclear reactor takes 10x more space but has 20x more capacity, then it means not having much space favors the big nuclear reactor rather than building 10 small ones that will take twice more space.

(and same for the time)

	▲	john_strinlai an hour ago \| parent [-]
		its probably my fault for not making myself clear. i mean when the available space is constrained to a specific amount of space that cannot be exceeded. just picking random numbers: i have 1 square mile available. a big reactor takes 4 square miles. i cannot fit a big reactor, despite the bigger reactor being more efficient.

▲

Arodex an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

If you need 500 MW, you build one 500 MW reactor, not five 100 MW reactors. They will take more space.

As for speed, a 100 MW reactor is not commissioned in 1/5 of the time a 500 MW reactor is.

▲

jkman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>'taylor-made' Says it all, doesn't it