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.”

  • MonkderDritte@feddit.deEnglish
    0·
    5 months ago

    as well as being extremely cheap per kilowatt.

    What? How? Far as i know it’s the most expensive, with a lot of hidden costs.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      When costs are level per kilowatt over lifetime Nuclear is cheaper thanks to economies of scale, it’s only more expensive when plants are restricted by local authorities in how much they can produce in a given cycle so that other power generators in the energy sector can fill their contracts. When these artificial caps are removed and the plant is allowed to operate as intended and no kneecapped to allow coal and oil plants to operate at their peak effeciency rates, nuclear drops below .10USD. And thats using outdated equipment and maintaining the absurdly high safety standards saddled upon them despite being the safest form of power production bar none.

      • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
        1·
        5 months ago

        When these artificial caps are removed and the plant is allowed to operate as intended and no kneecapped to allow coal and oil plants to operate at their peak effeciency rates, nuclear drops below .10USD.

        Wholesale or retail cost? Either way, that’s not especially cheap compared to renewables.

        Nuclear may be cost competitive with putting solar panels in space at this point. Granted, that’s back of the envelope costs for a hypothetical space based solar system compared to nuclear plants that already exist. But the fact that they’re close is not a good sign for nuclear.

        Plants will take 10 years to build, at least. If every permit was signed today, there wouldn’t be a single GW of this new nuclear going on the grid until 2034. We’re aiming for major reduction in CO2 by 2030. Oh, and the huge amount of concrete needed would create a massive spike in CO2 by itself. Timeline issues alone kill nuclear before it starts.

        Edit: fixing autocorrect’s corrections