Re:Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?
by AtlasBarfed on Thursday June 09, 2022 @03:04PM
(#31685401)
I think this is actually a good thing.
The old designs are dangerous, expensive, and wasteful. The regulatory, economic, and political environment that resulted in their design ultimately resulted in reactors run without proper controls, supervision, or long term safety. The resulting waste was not properly considered from a life cycle perspective.
Disclaimer: I'm not a nuclear expert, but man I loved those LFTR presentations. What really appeals to me about LFTR is the inherent safety, the near-full use of fuel, and the scalability. I understand there are challenges for the materials and containment, but I believe the smaller size of the reactor can lend itself to replacement and manufacturing.
So a "clean slate" with new people, regulations, standards, expectations, computer simulation, and lifecycle planning would do nuclear a huge bonus.
But ultimately it doesn't matter. It won't be price competitive with wind/solar and can't even target a 10-year price point with the wind/solar improvement curves. Same issue the fusion story on the front page faces.
Let's continue active research, but commercialization is a waste of time and money right now. When wind/solar stabilize their cost curves, then nuclear (or fusion) will have something to target commercially. IF they can get there.
The old designs are dangerous, expensive, and wasteful. The regulatory, economic, and political environment that resulted in their design ultimately resulted in reactors run without proper controls, supervision, or long term safety. The resulting waste was not properly considered from a life cycle perspective.
Disclaimer: I'm not a nuclear expert, but man I loved those LFTR presentations. What really appeals to me about LFTR is the inherent safety, the near-full use of fuel, and the scalability. I understand there are challenges for the materials and containment, but I believe the smaller size of the reactor can lend itself to replacement and manufacturing.
So a "clean slate" with new people, regulations, standards, expectations, computer simulation, and lifecycle planning would do nuclear a huge bonus.
But ultimately it doesn't matter. It won't be price competitive with wind/solar and can't even target a 10-year price point with the wind/solar improvement curves. Same issue the fusion story on the front page faces.
Let's continue active research, but commercialization is a waste of time and money right now. When wind/solar stabilize their cost curves, then nuclear (or fusion) will have something to target commercially. IF they can get there.