[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.”

  • PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    Why can’t we switch to thorium and molten salt instead? Much cleaner, much safer, same idea.

    • Synapse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Because it is actually not that simple, especially on the “cleaner” and “safer” parts.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 months ago

          Wikipedia has a good discussion, if you don’t need technical detail. They’re fairly optimistic, but do note difficulties. It actually looks more positive than I expected, with the number of demonstration reactors in the last decade or so. Note: “demonstration”. I don’t think there’s anything actually blocking use of Thorium, but some unresolved issues for commercialization, plus it’s not clear the actual results are better, or that nuclear is any longer a good place to invest. It’s more of: at this point, why would you go down that road?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

          • tobbue@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            At least ten years ago I first read about thorium reactors on 4chan, I believe, and how it will be the next big thing. Back then someone countered that he first heard about thorium reactors several years ago that they will be the next big thing, but they are never production ready and always experimental because they are so hard to contain. And so the story continues about thorium reactors and how they are just around the corner.

            Not that I’m against it, I just think it’s a little funny.

        • Synapse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Sorry, can’t find the stuff I read about it a while back when I was interested about it, or was it a YouTube video?

          Anyway, here is what I remember: having the radioactive fuel as a liquid makes it easier to leak, and once that’s happened, the environment damage will spread faster to ground water. Also sodium salt is liquid at high temperature, at which it will spontaneously catch fire in contact with oxygen (air), so any leak will cause a catastrophic fire, and this is what caused the demise of the French prototype “Projet Phénix” in the 70s.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Theoretically the main advantage of the thorium is precisely because its safer and cleaner. When removed from its neutron source thorium quickly ceases fission and decay.

        • sushibowl@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          “Theoretically” is worth very little. It is pretty much the same for every concept NPP, that once construction starts on an actual practical plant, ugly problems start coming up all over the place that were not considered or thought of in the concept stage. Corrosion is one of the biggest ones.

          See also the Rickover memo.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I didn’t think that was ready for commercialize yet. You have all the disadvantages of nuclear, but need additional development costs, need to implement a supply chain, then build out a new technology that is less efficient than existing nuclear, has unclear service life, may be supplanted by fusion or renewables, and you can still use it to make bomb material. Seems like a poor idea and a waste of money.

      From India’s perspective, they’d get to lead in a new technology, where they have huge reserves of fuel, and cheap labor to scale up to a billion energy-starved citizens …. And if it helped increase their nuclear weapons stock in the face of tight controls on plutonium, so much the better

      • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        What makes you think it’s less efficient. Normally high temperature reactor technology is more efficient not less.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I’m not claiming to be any more knowledgeable than what I read here, but Wikipedia says

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

          In 1973, however, the US government settled on uranium technology and largely discontinued thorium-related nuclear research. The reasons were that uranium-fuelled reactors were more efficient, the research was proven and thorium’s breeding ratio was thought insufficient to produce enough fuel to support development of a commercial nuclear industry

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I didn’t say anything about thorium. Not all molten salt reactors are thorium though. In fact not all high temperature reactors are molten salt either. People keep mixing these technologies up.