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.”

  • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    5 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.eeEnglish
      3·
      5 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.