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.”

@machinin@lemmy.world
creator
link
fedilink
English
145M

Does anyone know about the technology that nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers use? Why are they able to operate but we can’t use the same technology on land?

I’m pretty sure most military reactors use weapons grade uranium that’s enriched to mid 90%. Countries get sensitive when you start enriching uranium to the mid 90s.

pelya
link
fedilink
English
125M

Because military engineers overengineer these things from the most expensive materials available, and they also perform frequent maintenance on them, which is also expensive.

@Nilz@sopuli.xyz
link
fedilink
English
115M

To add to this: A certain type of Soviet submarine used a lead-bismuth alloy as coolant for their reactor. The coolant solidifies at ambient temperature so it had to be heated indefinitely by some way or another or else it solidified and trashed the reactor. I don’t think any of them exist anymore since Russia wasn’t able to afford sustaining the giant navy after the Soviet collapse.

Just goes to show how insane nuclear submarine engineering is, or was at some point.

Why are they able to operate but we can’t use the same technology on land?

Military budgets. You can use the tech, but no civilian can afford it.

@Poayjay@lemmy.world
link
fedilink
English
345M

I was a nuclear operator in the Navy. Here are the actual reasons:

  1. The designs are classified US military assets
  2. They are not refuleable
  3. They only come in 2 “sizes”: aircraft carrier and submarine
  4. They are not scaleable. You can just make a reactor 2x as big
  5. They require as much down time as up time
  6. They are outdated
  7. The military won’t let you interrupt their supply chain to make civilian reactors
  8. New designs over promise and underdeliver
  9. They are optimized for erratic operations (combat) not steady state (normal power loads)
  10. They are engineered assuming they have infinite sea water available for everything

There’s more but that’s just off the top of my head

Because if the electricity produced on these vessels was ten times the normal price, it would still be peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

Create a post

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


  • 1 user online
  • 210 users / day
  • 601 users / week
  • 1.38K users / month
  • 4.49K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 7.41K Posts
  • 84.7K Comments
  • Modlog