The Case Against Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (cnn.com)
- Reference: 0180648114
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/26/01/24/0452209/the-case-against-small-modular-nuclear-reactors
- Source link: https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/22/climate/small-nuclear-reactors-smrs-holtec-kairos
But "The reality, as ever, is likely to be messier and experts are sounding notes of caution..."
> All the arguments in favor of SMRs overlook a fundamental issue, said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists: They are too expensive. Despite all the money swilling around the sector, "it's still not enough," he told CNN. Nuclear power cannot compete on cost with alternatives, both fossil fuels and increasingly renewable energy, he said."
>
> Some SMRs also have an issue with fuel. The more unconventional designs, those cooled by salt or gas, often require a special type of fuel called high-assay low-enriched uranium, known as HALEU (pronounced hay-loo). The amounts available are limited and the supply chain has been dominated by Russia, despite efforts to build up a domestic supply. It's a major risk, said Nick Touran [a nuclear engineer and independent consultant]. The biggest challenge nuclear has is competing with natural gas, he said, a "luxury, super expensive fuel may not be the best way." There is still stigma around nuclear waste, too. SMR companies say smaller reactors mean less nuclear waste, but 2022 [6]research from Stanford University suggested some SMRs could actually generate more waste, in part because they are less fuel efficient...
>
> As companies race to prove SMRs can meet the hype, experts appear to be divided in their thinking. For some, SMRs are an expensive — and potentially dangerous — distraction, with timelines that stretch so far into the future they cannot be a genuine answer to soaring needs for clean power right now.
Nuclear engineering/consultant Touran told CNN the small reactors are "a technological solution to a financial problem. No venture capitalists can say, like, 'oh, sure, we'll build a $30 billion plant.' But, if you're down into hundreds of millions, maybe they can do it."
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/22/climate/small-nuclear-reactors-smrs-holtec-kairos
[2] https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/10/17/2314242/first-look-at-the-amazons-nuclear-facility-planned-for-washington-state
[3] https://oklo.com/newsroom/news-details/2026/Oklo-Meta-Announce-Agreement-in-Support-of-1-2-GW-Nuclear-Energy-Development-in-Southern-Ohio/default.aspx
[4] https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/04/26/1745204/company-seeks-first-time-restart-of-shuttered-nuclear-plant
[5] https://kairospower.com/external_updates/kairos-power-begins-construction-on-hermes-low-power-demonstration-reactor/
[6] https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2022/05/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste
"overlook a fundamental issues" (Score:2)
So business as usual for the nuclear assholes. Seriously, we need to start ignoring these people. All they do is massive damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Where and what "massive damage"? Be specific.
Haleu? (Score:2)
"The amounts available are limited and the supply chain has been dominated by Russia"
Somehow I doubt the russians are supplying fuel for the SMRs in Nato nuclear submarines.
Re: (Score:2)
> "The amounts available are limited and the supply chain has been dominated by Russia"
> Somehow I doubt the russians are supplying fuel for the SMRs in Nato nuclear submarines.
The word "dominated" does not mean "monopolized".
You may feel free to try again with this apparently new information.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not even close to dominating it. Just another BS error in this supposed "factual" article.
In a country with as much land as the USA (Score:4, Informative)
Nuclear power makes zero sense unless you have a existing plant. Otherwise you just build out wind and or solar, probably solar because the orange one has a hate boner for wind and he will interfere with your project. Then you pick one of the half dozen battery technologies that are cheap at scale for a large installation and call it a day.
If you've got a 50 year old plant somebody already spent the money building sure whatever, it's not like you care about safety you don't live anywhere near it.
But if you're going to build a new installation to power if you need the power in a hurry you do gas turbines (hurry being relative because there's a one to two year wait on those things, which is still better than the 8 to 10 it takes for a nuclear power plant to get up and running safely here). Otherwise you build solar or if Donald Trump gets impeached and removed from office wind.
And please full love of God don't ask me what to do when the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow. It's 2025 both of those questions have answers on Google...
I've never understood why old nerds have such a boner for nuclear power. Never mind the safety problems it stopped being economical 10 or 15 years ago when wind and solar got so cheap
Also I remind everybody nuclear is used (Score:1)
To build bombs too. Of course it did it's always that they Underestimated just how fucking crazy and senile Trump is. They also underestimated how much Putin is willing to murder and hurt and kill his own population for his stupid boyhood dreams of imperial America. Because of that they got caught flat footed. They could turn to nuclear but they don't trust their private sector to do it safely after Fukushima and they don't trust their voters to keep it in the hands of the government. All that is a politica
Re: Climate Cultists Destroyed Nuclear Energy (Score:2)
Hey I'm close enough to those evil unamerican strawmen you mentioned and would like to suggest that on days with insufficient renewable power+reserves in batteries, people should take a day off and just chill.
It would be like the covid lockdown, but with fewer deaths and restriction to socialising.
I'll get some AI help to do the maths to compare that to adding nuclear plants when my Solar generation is a bit more productive - maybe in 3 weeks.
Re: (Score:1)
When your Orange Jesus gives us WW3 because CNN's camera angle made his ass look fat, that's all that will be left.
Discourating for fusion (Score:2)
I hope fusion could produce energy more efficiently because it doesn't need to be so reliable or fault tolerant or tightly regulated because will inherently shut down if it starts to crack up.
But the equipment and techniques and materials for fusion are so exotic today - still beyond know engineering capabilities in fact - it is discouraging as to it ever providing cheap energy.
It's the people, stupid (Score:2)
Nuclear power has one serious issue: there are people involved in its generation. These people are the bean counters that try to cheap out on construction, try to reduce training so that 4th graders are running the plant, ignore dangerous conditions, and then abandon the radioactive waste once the plant is decommissioned. The regulations around nuclear power aren't excessive preventatively, but because all these problems have played out in the real world.
Rickover's presentation (Score:2)
Admiral Rickover's presentation on paper reactors vs real reactors is as applicable today as when he first gave it in 1953.
Smells fishy to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Specifically this line:
"Nuclear power cannot compete on cost with alternatives, both fossil fuels and increasingly renewable energy, he said."
This is a massive mis-statement, if not a lie by omission. nuclear power is known for one thing - having lower operational costs.
It is 'expensive' for one reason - government regulations/paper work. Despite causing far less deaths than coal - even if you restrict coal deaths to just radioactive related deaths, Nuclear has far more regulations than coal. Civilians are afraid of it and governments are afraid terrorists will steal the fuel and make bombs out of it.
Much of this cost is that each nuclear power plant is a 'bespoke' / unique design. There is no standard model that they reproduce everywhere. They care about the foundation, water, winds, etc.
The main idea of a small nuclear reactor is that it would solve the regulation/paper work by creating an 'approved' module that can then be created repeatedly without new paperwork every time.
If this happens, then most of the expense to build a nuclear power plant will vanish, leaving only the significantly cheaper operational costs.
Nuclear Power is inherently CHEAPER than fossil fuels, not more expensive. It is only the set up and regulatory costs that are massive. Ignoring this factor is ignoring the entire idea of small nuclear reactors.
Re:Smells fishy to me (Score:4, Informative)
> Nuclear Power is inherently CHEAPER than fossil fuels, not more expensive.
No. It is not. You are apparently going for a BIG LIE here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie). Makes you a fundamentally bad person.
Re: (Score:2)
Also nice is the invalid comparison. Because what people _actually_ are building is renewables. And there nuclear reveals that it is nothing but a fundamentally bad idea.
Re:Smells fishy to me (Score:5, Insightful)
People are building "renewables" because they're subsidized.
People aren't building nukes because governments deliberately make them expensive.
I'm not entirely sure the latter is a bad thing given that Nothing Works Any More and I don't trust people to be competent enough to keep nukes working safely. But it's very clear that the power generation industry has nothing to do with what makes logical or financial sense and is largely driven by government policies.
Re: (Score:3)
"This is a massive mis-statement, if not a lie by omission. nuclear power is known for one thing - having lower operational costs."
But to "compete on cost" you have to consider ALL costs. The "lie by omission" here is yours.
"It is 'expensive' for one reason - government regulations/paper work."
That, and what those regulations are for. They are cheaper to make when you accept that a cost of doing business is calamities, but governments don't agree.
"Nuclear has far more regulations than coal. "
Not an argume
Re: (Score:3)
> This is a massive mis-statement, if not a lie by omission. nuclear power is known for one thing - having lower operational costs.
I know other people have pointed out that this is a lie, but that is not the worst thing about it. It is also a deliberate attempt to misdirect from the one thing nuclear power is actually known for — when it goes wrong, it goes very wrong.
Re: Smells fishy to me (Score:2)
Nuclear power goes wrong, a few hundred square miles are uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
Fossil fuels go right and the planet is uninhabitable
Spot the scam (Score:4, Insightful)
Dudebro here is playing a shell game.
See if you can figure it out.
It is 'expensive' for one reason - government regulations/paper work.
The game here is to pretend this is all stupid overhead, imagine hundreds of lawyers toiling away to ensure proper punctuation to satisfy humorless bureaucrats who of course know nothing and only live to make life difficult for real he-man nooklular engineers.
A serious person would ask what the alternative would be. And for many projects, that would be an insurer, who would do the exact same thing - tell you to make various modifications, or you would pay significantly higher premiums to cover the risk, or maybe not get insurance.
The problem is private insurers won't accept the risk, because the costs are potentially existential for them. So the only insurer you can find is a government, who can nullify local victims' legal claims.
But if you have a non-corrupt government, they're going to make you make it safe. Like, lots of money safe. And notice, shit still happens with these things.
So in reality, what dudebro here is asking for is the right to run take risks with other peoples' health by running potentially dangerous things for private gain, and also wants to be indemnified if he hurts them.
And it is all bundled up in a little whiny bitch about stupid regulations.
So why hasn't anyone else done it? I call BS (Score:2)
Oooh, the libtards and pussies in government using "safety regulations" to keep you from cheap power? Well...why if your assertion was true, rugged, sensible MANLY governments elsewhere would be adopting this technology to cheap power glory. We're one of 195 sovereign nations, so who has made this work? You just repeated the old bullshit Republican/Libertarian line of how gov is the evil standing in the way of progress....classic scam tactic. Trust me, bro...change all your laws and safety regulations a