|
|
|
|
|
by _aavaa_
957 days ago
|
|
My gripe with your comment is painting NuScale and other SMNRs as “practical” or being representative of “new nuclear”. People with expertise in building plants have been trying to dispel the idea that SMNRs will ever manage to be cost effective. Even if you could manage to build them cheaply, which is a massive if, that doesn’t mean that the electricity they produce will be cheap. This is a classic example of horizontal scaling, which is tried and tested way of producing an expensive final product. The nuclear power plant isn’t the product it’s the factory, electricity is the product. The smaller your factory/process, the less scaling laws work in your favor. Take solar for example; solar panels are not the factory, a whole solar farm is the factory. Residential rooftop solar produces more expensive electricity than commercial rooftop solar, which produces electricity more expensive than utility scale solar. The panels can be the same, it’s all the other stuff, the “balance of plant”, that has a more fixed cost which you don’t get to spread out over as many panels. Same problem for SMNRs. |
|
Such that over years of successive improvements, there is an active downward pressure on price and upward progress in features / improvements / utility.
The promise of the SMNR is really the closet-sized ORNL reactor. Of course that doesn't involve lots of chemical processing support systems, but the reactor wasn't that big. And yes getting a Brayton cycle turbine attached and combined cycle generators to max output won't fit in a closet.
But ... still, it would be the path forward to the biggest challenges to nuclear:
1) actual cost
2) reliably delivering on budget
As the comment above you points out, the ship sailed on nuclear ten years ago when the window of it being competitive with wind/solar was open. Now it's been buried.
As it stands, we are left with China to possibly figure it out.