Comment by toast0
16 days ago
Large buildings almost always take a long time to build; nuclear reactors are large buildings. Authoritarianism allows outside reviews to be skipped, but it doesn't make concrete cure faster. And you've also got to build out grid connections and what not too, which isn't fast.
In theory, Small Modular Reactors are supposed to be something that can be built in a factory setting, and then installed at locations with a smaller construction project; if that works out, that's when you'd get faster construction times.
> In theory, Small Modular Reactors are supposed to be something that can be built in a factory setting, and then installed at locations with a smaller construction project;
IIRC, SMRs have a larger output per KwH of waste, compared to LWRs. I assume that this waste is going to be stored on sight for long periods of time, that will require a decent sized construction project on location as well, won't it?
Also, after 9/11 we required nuclear plants to withstand a direct hit from a 737. Will the factory build SMRs to that spec, or will that be onsite as well (underground?)
You don't really need to have the onsite waste storage built before the reactor goes online.
> Also, after 9/11 we required nuclear plants to withstand a direct hit from a 737. Will the factory build SMRs to that spec, or will that be onsite as well (underground?)
Depends on who 'we' is. IMHO, SMR isn't going to make large numbers of reactors nuclear viable in the US; the problem in the US isn't really the cost of construction although that's not great, it's the cost of delays from the many levels of review and regulations; that ship sailed on March 28, 1979; and I don't think nuclear be viable again in the US until the generation of environmentalists brought up in the shadow of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are gone, which is going to take quite some time; maybe renewables plus storage will be more than sufficient by the time the US is ready to consider nuclear again, at which point it will be moot.
We seem to agree on where we are at in the USA, so I am not trying to argue at all, but just to clarify what I meant here:
> You don't really need to have the onsite waste storage built before the reactor goes online.
But one would have to construct a safe and secure on-site storage facility ahead of time, is what I imagined. It's not like that's something you would add as an afterthought, is it?
3 replies →