66
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

With a few SMR projects built and operational at this point, and more plants under development, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) concludes in a report that SMRs are "still too expensive, too slow to build, and too risky to play a significant role in transitioning away from fossil fuels."

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago

Return on investment is still heavily in favor of solar or wind generation with battery or hydro storage for low generation periods.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Yes, and SMR tech is not mature enough to be considered useful, BUT if it can overcome that hurdle, it has the potential for applications that need exceptionally high availability, like data centers targeting five 9s availability.

Energy costs aren't always the only consideration

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Excellent point, but we should also consider how much data center utilization is due to wasteful, zero-value-added activities such as crypto mining, which should be banned.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

Big overruns in budget and time for first 4 plants currently under construction, but the analysis double dips regarding "risk" as they are again talking about financial risk to investors, not risk of meltdown or other disaster.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Investment risk is a category of risk. How's that "double-dipping?"

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

The investment risk is directly related to cost overruns and delays, which are already stated.

On the other hand, a major point of these projects is how they significantly reduce the risk to humans and the environment compared to other nuclear plants, so I don't think I'm alone in expecting the "risk" in the headline was referring to some rebuttal of their claims, but that is not the case.

this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
66 points (91.2% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

4744 readers
569 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS