[JumpCrisscross]

> Small or modular reactors in the US are more than 10 years away, probably more like 15-20

Could be 5 to 10 with $20+ bn/year in scale and research spend.

Trump is screwing over his China hawks. The anti-China and pro-nuclear lobbies have significant overlap; this could be how Trump keeps e.g. Peter Thiel from going thermonuclear on him.

[jscottbee]

I work in the sector and it's impossible to build a full-sized reactor in less than 10 years, and the usual over-run is 5 years. That's the time for tried and tested designs. The tech isn't there yet, and there are no working analogs in the US to use as an approved guide. The Department of Energy does not allow "off-the-cuff" designs for reactors. I think there is only two SMRs that have been built, one by the Russians and the other by China. I'm not sure they are fully functioning, or at least working as expected. I know there are going to be more small gas gens built in the near future and that SMRs in the US are way off.

[ericd]

Guessing SMRs are a ways off, any thoughts on the container-sized microreactors that would stand in for large diesel gens? My impression is that they’re still in the design phase, and the supply chain for the 20% U-235 HALEU fuel is in its infancy, but this is just based on some cursory research. I like the prospect of mass manufacturing and servicing those in a centralized location versus the challenges of building, staffing, and maintaining a series of one-off megaprojects, though.

[perryizgr8]

> it's impossible to build a full-sized reactor in less than 10 years, and the usual over-run is 5 years

I'm curious why that is. If we know how to build it, it shouldn't take that long. It's not like we need to move a massive amount of earth or pour a humongous amount of concrete or anything like that, which would actually take time. Then why does it take 15 years to build a reactor with a design that is already tried and tested and approved?

[jscottbee]

Well, you do have to move a lot of earth and pour A LOT of concrete :) Many steps have to be x-rayed, and many other tests done before other steps can be started. Every weld is checked and, all internal and external concrete is cured, treated, and verified. If anything is wrong, it has to be fixed in place (if possible) or removed and redone. It's a slow process and should be for many steps.

One of the big issues that have occurred (in the US especially) is, that for 20+ years there were no new plants built. This caused a large void in the talent pool, inside and outside the industry. That fact, along with others has caused many problems with some projects of recent years in the US.

[mullingitover]

> I'm curious why that is.

When you're the biggest fossil fuel producer in the world, it's vital that you stay laser-focused on regulating nuclear power to death in every imaginable detail while you ignore the vast problems with unchecked carbon emissions and gaslight anyone who points them out.

[cbozeman]

https://www.forbes.com/global/2008/1124/103.html

112 reactors.

A gigawatt each.

Over 10 years ago.

[jscottbee]

Not all are built and are in use or fully finished. Toshiba flubbed up majorly a few years later and many projects were abandoned.

[cbozeman]

That's a bummer. We need nuclear, badly.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it's impossible to build a full-sized reactor in less than 10 years

We’re not doing time and tested.

> Department of Energy does not allow "off-the-cuff" designs for reactor

Not by statute!

[twelve40]

i don't and i honestly don't know much about it, but

> there are no working analogs in the US to use as an approved guide

small reactors have been installed on ships and submarines for over 70(!) years now. Reading up on the very first one, USS Nautilus, "the conceptual design of the first nuclear submarine began in March 1950" it took a couple of years? So why is it so unthinkably hard 70 years later, honest question? "Military doesn't care about cost" is not good enough, there are currently about >100 active ones with who knows how many hundreds in the past, so they must have cracked the cost formula at some point, besides by now we have hugely better tech than the 50's, so what gives?

[jscottbee]

Yeah, I wondered about seacraft reactors myself. I think there are many safety allowances for DOD vs. DOE. The DOD reactors are not publicly accessible (you hope anyway), and the data centers will be in and near the public. There are also major security measures that have to be taken for reactor sites. You have armed personnel before you even get to the reactors, and then the entrances are sometimes close to one mile away from the reactor. Once there, the number of guards and bang-bags goes up. The modern sites kind of look like they have small henges around them (back to the neolithic!) :)