A new report has assessed the feasibility of deploying small modular nuclear reactors to meet increasing energy demands around the world. The findings don't look so good for this particular form of energy production.

[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.”

  • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
    01·
    5 months ago

    I don’t know where you’re from, but I doubt it’s as bleak as you make it sound for renewables. They key to renewables is threefold IMHO:

    1. You have to overbuild. You need to be able to sustain things on 50-60% of maximum output.

    2. You must have multiple grades of storage to cover different time scales. Hours, days, weeks, months. Different capacities of storage that can respond on different timescales.

    3. You need to exploit the diversity of different geographic areas. Take the US for example. Wind in the northern coastal regions. Solar across the south. Hydro in the mountains. These different areas can’t do it alone. They need to supply each other in times of plenty, and depend on each each other in times of “famine”.

    So there’s lots of investment needed; In capacity, storage and transmission, and the choice is always where you spend your money. I would rather spend it on renewables and the infrastructure to support it. It’ll be quicker to bring online, cheaper, and a better long term solution.