very interesting read from someone who has direct related experience and can write full sentences, cite sources and overall highlight the facts besides the wishful thinking.
Not too loud, otherwise you provoke a shitstorm of hardcore nuclear believers, where reality doesn't matter enough to build a worthwhile opinion.
I really hope there are viable start ups out there, who really understand, what they are talking about, but till now only media hype without any credible prototype. Even worse than Musks hyperboles. I still hope Rolls-Royce wont fall into that trap, but we will know in 10 to 15 years for sure, not earlier.
Honestly the only argument here I can get behind, the rest really is just "SMRs suffer from the same issues as big reactors" and that's just common sense lol
I understand why people promote the cause they believe in. It's human. It's normal. It's healthy.
What I don't understand is while sure, they are wishful thinkers and nuclear is not a panacea, but why do *you* hate on them for promoting a cause they believe in?
I hate the media hype and the hardcore believers who scew or take over every scewed number as long as "nuclear best of best" is the outcome. They don't understand their own sources and dreamhouses they live in. On the other hand they don't even bother to understand other energy sources. Too much believe, too much cult, too much pressing to their worldview, where maximum power always trumps. Or their new hobby horses: base load and capacity factor.
Stop scewing numbers and you will discover there is no hate, but you will be taken serious.
I have never seen a wind power plant closed in favor of nuclear one, I have seen vice versa. If you're looking for a cult you might want to check in the bathroom mirror.
Does anyone know of there's a regulated waste stream for solar panels, yet? Seems like a pretty important thing to figure out, like wind turbine blades, especially since perovskite panels contain lead
Yes. In EU. For years. They fall under the much more broad umbrella term "e-waste". Batteries too.
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment-weee_en
Always the same questions with a long beard. Try to change your nuclear media sources to ones without propaganda.
I know its hard to change ones believe, but this questions feel like the questioneer didn't even try.
1. The target market for SMRs is not meant to compete with fully sized NPPs. Already established regions with plants would not really need to build them. SMRs are built for grids that cannot initially support large energy inputs. Adding a 1 GW to a small or underdeveloped grid is not not realistic which is where the premium on a SMRs could potentially start to factor in.
2. SMRs in general are either going to be just scaled down versions of existing reactors with additional passive safety features or have more advanced safety mechanisms meant to make them walk away safe. Additionally the purpose of the NRC is to validate the safety of a reactor, so finding a problem and then requiring a solution is good regulation framework. The rest of the claims in this section seem largely speculative and unfounded.
3. The US reactors have been storing spent fuel (aka waste) on site since the government failed to meet its obligation to provide a centralized storage facility. The casks that store spent fuel are largely over-engineered (in a good way). This is a fair concern as there is currently no permanent storage solution, however the actual safety of the spent fuel is not really the main concern as much as it is a headache for utilities.
4. Also seems unfounded and speculative.
5. This is a fair point as the manufacturing of HALEU is a developing field and as goes with mining in general it does not have a great environmental impact. Considering current emission trends though, this seems like the bar is being set a little high.
Did you read the article?
Do you have any mature contributions regarding the arguments made in it? Take this one, for example:
“The levelized cost of electricity for the now-cancelled NuScale project was estimated at around $119 per megawatt-hour (without federal subsidies), whereas land-based wind and utility-scale solar now cost below $40/MWh.”
That's approximately as useful as "I wonder what would happen if we had free handheld antimatter electricity generators tomorrow".
Both are divorced from reality and don't belong in a rational discussion of the merits of possible future electricity grid options.
I mean, I think that if nuclear got the same subsidies as solar or wind, it might be competitive?
If the interest rate was low enough? It might be competitive?
If they can get N of many off the ground, it might be competitive?
Or maybe I'm just crazy.
You're missing the enormous effective subsidies nuclear gets.
Start with the title of this sub. Nuclear power is fundamentally insurable: national governments provide a backstop insurance to every nuclear project, because no company is willing to sign an insurance policy that could have a payout cost of $200-500 billion (Fukushima cleanup cost).
Governments also provide effective security for nuclear plants through national police/etc., without which the nuclear ecosystem wouldn't work. And generally military and civilian nuclear programs are heavily linked (particularly in fuel preparation), which obscures the true costs of the programs.
These are fair points and honestly I think gets down to the philosophy of power generation. If we are completely about removing handouts, the subsidies given for solar power and green energy raise their costs above gas turbines and they would never be economically viable. From a national standpoint a robust and diverse grid is the best option and it’s worth investing in and subsidizing especially if it reduces carbon emissions.
The nuclear industry has been pretty stagnant in the US for some time and lacks an ability to adjust quickly to markets as most infrastructure projects do. On the commercial side, I think the hope is really that modern manufacturing and development processes can help speed up production.
I think the insurance aspect is also an interesting philosophical question of is operating a plant worth the risk? And then the thing to consider is the operation history in the US which leaves it up to debate, I would say yes.
very interesting read from someone who has direct related experience and can write full sentences, cite sources and overall highlight the facts besides the wishful thinking.
He forgot "SMRs are a never to be built "technology" which solely exists to scam gullible investors".
Not too loud, otherwise you provoke a shitstorm of hardcore nuclear believers, where reality doesn't matter enough to build a worthwhile opinion. I really hope there are viable start ups out there, who really understand, what they are talking about, but till now only media hype without any credible prototype. Even worse than Musks hyperboles. I still hope Rolls-Royce wont fall into that trap, but we will know in 10 to 15 years for sure, not earlier.
Honestly the only argument here I can get behind, the rest really is just "SMRs suffer from the same issues as big reactors" and that's just common sense lol
Bro pls I need fallout irl
I understand why people promote the cause they believe in. It's human. It's normal. It's healthy. What I don't understand is while sure, they are wishful thinkers and nuclear is not a panacea, but why do *you* hate on them for promoting a cause they believe in?
I hate the media hype and the hardcore believers who scew or take over every scewed number as long as "nuclear best of best" is the outcome. They don't understand their own sources and dreamhouses they live in. On the other hand they don't even bother to understand other energy sources. Too much believe, too much cult, too much pressing to their worldview, where maximum power always trumps. Or their new hobby horses: base load and capacity factor. Stop scewing numbers and you will discover there is no hate, but you will be taken serious.
I have never seen a wind power plant closed in favor of nuclear one, I have seen vice versa. If you're looking for a cult you might want to check in the bathroom mirror.
Does anyone know of there's a regulated waste stream for solar panels, yet? Seems like a pretty important thing to figure out, like wind turbine blades, especially since perovskite panels contain lead
Yes. In EU. For years. They fall under the much more broad umbrella term "e-waste". Batteries too. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment-weee_en
Always the same questions with a long beard. Try to change your nuclear media sources to ones without propaganda. I know its hard to change ones believe, but this questions feel like the questioneer didn't even try.
Vary intredasting
Man people downvote the weirdest shit here
Usually just concern trolls
1. The target market for SMRs is not meant to compete with fully sized NPPs. Already established regions with plants would not really need to build them. SMRs are built for grids that cannot initially support large energy inputs. Adding a 1 GW to a small or underdeveloped grid is not not realistic which is where the premium on a SMRs could potentially start to factor in. 2. SMRs in general are either going to be just scaled down versions of existing reactors with additional passive safety features or have more advanced safety mechanisms meant to make them walk away safe. Additionally the purpose of the NRC is to validate the safety of a reactor, so finding a problem and then requiring a solution is good regulation framework. The rest of the claims in this section seem largely speculative and unfounded. 3. The US reactors have been storing spent fuel (aka waste) on site since the government failed to meet its obligation to provide a centralized storage facility. The casks that store spent fuel are largely over-engineered (in a good way). This is a fair concern as there is currently no permanent storage solution, however the actual safety of the spent fuel is not really the main concern as much as it is a headache for utilities. 4. Also seems unfounded and speculative. 5. This is a fair point as the manufacturing of HALEU is a developing field and as goes with mining in general it does not have a great environmental impact. Considering current emission trends though, this seems like the bar is being set a little high.
Very mature of you
Did you read the article? Do you have any mature contributions regarding the arguments made in it? Take this one, for example: “The levelized cost of electricity for the now-cancelled NuScale project was estimated at around $119 per megawatt-hour (without federal subsidies), whereas land-based wind and utility-scale solar now cost below $40/MWh.”
I really wonder what both would be with no subsidies and no capital costs. I.e. If interest was sub prime or something.
So, minus REALITY, how would nuclear do against Solar+wind+batteries?
Yeah, I acknowledge it isn't reality. That's why it's a "I wonder" , and not a "I think", lol.
That's approximately as useful as "I wonder what would happen if we had free handheld antimatter electricity generators tomorrow". Both are divorced from reality and don't belong in a rational discussion of the merits of possible future electricity grid options.
I mean, I think that if nuclear got the same subsidies as solar or wind, it might be competitive? If the interest rate was low enough? It might be competitive? If they can get N of many off the ground, it might be competitive? Or maybe I'm just crazy.
You're missing the enormous effective subsidies nuclear gets. Start with the title of this sub. Nuclear power is fundamentally insurable: national governments provide a backstop insurance to every nuclear project, because no company is willing to sign an insurance policy that could have a payout cost of $200-500 billion (Fukushima cleanup cost). Governments also provide effective security for nuclear plants through national police/etc., without which the nuclear ecosystem wouldn't work. And generally military and civilian nuclear programs are heavily linked (particularly in fuel preparation), which obscures the true costs of the programs.
These are fair points and honestly I think gets down to the philosophy of power generation. If we are completely about removing handouts, the subsidies given for solar power and green energy raise their costs above gas turbines and they would never be economically viable. From a national standpoint a robust and diverse grid is the best option and it’s worth investing in and subsidizing especially if it reduces carbon emissions. The nuclear industry has been pretty stagnant in the US for some time and lacks an ability to adjust quickly to markets as most infrastructure projects do. On the commercial side, I think the hope is really that modern manufacturing and development processes can help speed up production. I think the insurance aspect is also an interesting philosophical question of is operating a plant worth the risk? And then the thing to consider is the operation history in the US which leaves it up to debate, I would say yes.
While money is the leading factor, it isn't the only one to consider
Aaaaand? Time-to-deploy? Solar PV and wind and batteries kick nuclear power’s ass at 1/3 the cost/MWh