Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EGO_Prime t1_iubptiq wrote

>Not likely. Mass production tends to result in efficiencies that can't be achieved with bespoke engineering at any scale.

I mean they use more materials, you can't get away from that fact. Efficient use of materials can never reduce costs bellow material costs.

>Not to mention, SMRs can be dropped in just about anywhere at the substation level, repurposing more of the existing infrastructure, while making it more resilient. Rather than having to build out extensive infrastructure just to accommodate the construction phase of this mega plant.

There are some advantages, but in practical sense, most are not realizable. Like your drop and install anyway point. People don't want to live around nukes, even small ones. Zoning and planing are decided at a high level with input from local citizenry. If they don't want it, it wont be installed. Centralized plants have a much easier time navigating and absorbing these costs.

11

ok46reddit t1_iubq81j wrote

>I mean they use more materials

Again, not hardly. You have to build a whole goddamned city to support an old cold-war scale nuclear plant. Cost overruns are one of the big reasons they are scarcely built anymore. They are resource intensive in many dimensions.

SMRs are not nearly as resource intensive because they can be used in tandem with existing infrastructure.

The only reason to dust off the cold-war model is for a jobs program... Kinda like NASA did with the SLS.

−11

EGO_Prime t1_iubu4bf wrote

Per Watt generated they use more resources. Again, per Watt generated, not overall. Most large scale plants generate GWs of power with each core being close to a full GW or more, where SMBs are in the low hundreds of MWs. Larger plants are able to leverage their scale to reduce resources for the secondary and support items, like the power distribution or large scale cooling systems, the later get significantly cheaper and less resource intensive with larger size. So it does costs more for the whole (large) site, but when you break the cost down per Watt of generated power, larger sites will tend to be cheaper to both build and operate.

SMRs do potentially have additional safety features though, so it's possible operational costs might be less. But material costs won't be smaller, you still need containment system, turbines, transformers sub-stations, etc. They'll be smaller because there's less load, but when you scale that up to the same output of a large plant, you'll need more resources for the same power output.

I'm not trying to knock SMRs. A single plant is cheaper to build, but it also generates significantly less power then a larger unit, with many of the same design and zoning constraints.

12

ok46reddit t1_iubwfvl wrote

Again. SMRs do not use more resources.

The resources consumed do not only include materials used in the reactor, but also in the surrounding infrastructure.

−7