A new report has assessed the feasibility of deploying small modular nuclear reactors to meet increasing energy demands around the world. The findings don't look so good for this particular form of energy production.

[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.”

  • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
    5·
    6 months ago

    Scrapping the NuScale project had nothing to do with lawsuits. Governments pulled their financial support because projected costs were exceeding what was contractually promised, mostly due to pandemic-related supply chain and inflation issues.

    This is typical of nuclear. The industry wants to believe its problem is regulation. It’s not, at least not if you want to have better safety guarantees than the Soviet Union did. Its problem is that to be safe, nuclear is expensive, and there doesn’t appear to be a way out of that.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      21·
      6 months ago

      Yes, NuScale wasn’t scrapped due to lawsuits, I was more referring to the delays to Blue Castle, which was delayed for 3-ish years due to lawsuits.

      NuScale is a pretty small operation promising something like 300-400MW. Blue Castle is a lot larger promising ~1500MW.

      nuclear is expensive

      Initially, yes, but amortized over the life of the plant, it’s pretty cheap. It has a high upfront cost and relatively low operating costs. And one of the big operating costs (waste disposal) won’t be an issue here, the larger issue is water access for cooling, and that’s political (farmers don’t want to give up water rights).

      My main concern is seismic activity, since if we get an earthquake, it’ll likely be very violent. That increases initial costs, but doesn’t really impact ongoing costs. Utah just doesn’t like throwing large sums of money around, hence the political pushback.

      We’re still >50% fossil fuels, so I’ll support anything that replaces that. I like hydrogen (in development), geothermal (in development), solar (expanding), and wind (seems to be slowing), but that’s not going to be enough. Even if all of those were operating today, we’d still be using significant amounts of fossil fuels. I think we will still need nuclear, we have the space and demand for it.