Technology

59587 readers

5370 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Small modular nuclear reactors get a reality check in new report (newatlas.com)

submitted 5 months ago by machinin@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

[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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] machinin@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (4 children)

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.world 0 points 5 months ago

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

The designs are classified US military assets
They are not refuleable
They only come in 2 “sizes”: aircraft carrier and submarine
They are not scaleable. You can just make a reactor 2x as big
They require as much down time as up time
They are outdated
The military won’t let you interrupt their supply chain to make civilian reactors
New designs over promise and underdeliver
They are optimized for erratic operations (combat) not steady state (normal power loads)
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

[–] WhiteHotaru@feddit.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Military expenses, the only socialism acceptable to Americans.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.world 0 points 5 months 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.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months 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.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 0 points 5 months ago

It's expensive in subs too