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.worldOPEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    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?

    • Poayjay@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 month ago

      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 They are outdated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

    • assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 month ago

      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.

    • WhiteHotaru@feddit.deEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      Because if the military wants something, budgets are big. And they do not need to make money.

        • Zron@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          Gotta love how the post office is legally required to show they can turn a profit, but the military has a history of building literal burn pits that essentially burn US tax dollars by lighting equipment on fire and giving soldiers cancer.

          • PriorityMotif@lemmy.worldEnglish
            02·
            1 month ago

            I don’t think the military should show a profit. That would just bring back colonialism. Although, they do make a hefty profit for defense contractors.

            • Zron@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              1 month ago

              The fact that this was your take away is concerning.

              No government service should have to show a profit. If it’s an essential service, then it needs to be done. The only time money should come into it is in regular audits to ensure the budget is being used efficiently.