Comment by mixdup

Comment by mixdup 9 hours ago

31 replies

A major reason nuclear plants are super expensive is because we do it so rarely

Every reactor and every plant is bespoke, even if they are based on a common "design" each instance is different enough that every project has to be managed from the ground up as a new thing, you get certified only on a single plant, operators can't move from plant to plant without recertification, etc

Part of that is because they are so big and massive, and take a long time to build. If we'd build smaller, modular reactors that are literally exactly the same every single time you would begin to get economies of scale, you'd be able to get by without having to build a complete replica for training every time, and by being smaller you'd get to value delivery much quicker reducing the finance costs, which would then let you plow the profits from Reactor A into Reactor B's construction

throw0101a 7 hours ago

> A major reason nuclear plants are super expensive is because we do it so rarely

Once you have your supply chain running, and PM/labour experience, things can run fairly quickly. In the 1980s and '90s Japan was starting a new nuclear plant every 1-2 years, and finishing them in 5:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...

France built 40 in a decade:

* https://worksinprogress.co/issue/liberte-egalite-radioactivi...

More recently, Vogtle Unit 3 was expensive AF, but Unit 4 cost 30% less (though still not cheap).

ciconia 8 hours ago

Exactly. What is needed is a SpaceX-like enterprise, where the engineering effort is concentrated in building economies of scale. To me it's clear that nuclear energy's pros largely outweigh the cons, and that it is a perfect complement to solar and wind power generation.

  • tencentshill 8 hours ago

    We can't blow up nuclear reactors to learn how they failed like spaceX does with rockets.

    • charcircuit 8 hours ago

      Sure we can, just not out in the open with a bunch of spectators.

      • kotaKat 3 hours ago

        ... Sooooo... time to fire back up the old range at Bikini Atoll?

  • jraph 7 hours ago

    > What is needed is a SpaceX-like enterprise

    I'm not sure. They have more injuries per worker than their competition [1]. Space should already not be "let's work too fast at safety's cost", nuclear really can't.

    [1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/18/spacex-worker-injury-rates...

    • elictronic 7 hours ago

      Injury rate is 6x other space vehicle manufacturers. If you were to slow them down by 6x they would pretty close to the 20 years it’s already taken to get SLS/constellation to do a test launch.

      Super heavy is on year 4.

    • rogerrogerr 7 hours ago

      Betcha their worker injuries per kg to LEO are lower than most companies.

  • crooked-v 8 hours ago

    I really don't want a SpaceX-like attitude to radioactive material.

nicce 9 hours ago

It isn't that rare in general - if the U.S. opens the secrets of nuclear submarines - we had had mini reactors for decades.

  • jasonwatkinspdx 6 hours ago

    Total non starter.

    Nuclear submarine power plants are not in any way a technology useful for utility scale power generation.

    To start with they use fuel enriched to weapons grade.

    They aren't cost effective vs the amount of power produced, and the designs don't scale up to utility scale power.

    Submarine plants are not some sort of miracle SMR we can just roll out.

    The Navy is willing to page cost premiums a utility company cannot, because for the Navy it's about having a necessary capability. There's no economic break even to consider.

  • nradov 7 hours ago

    Secrecy isn't the obstacle here. Naval reactors are optimized for combat performance, costs be damned. They aren't economically efficient for commercial power generation.

  • _aavaa_ 9 hours ago

    The problem is economics. Just because the Us built a fleet does not mean that they are economical once put in a non-military application.

    • [removed] 7 hours ago
      [deleted]
  • tick_tock_tick 8 hours ago

    I'd be fine with us just having the USA navy operate them we build them for carriers and subs just double or triple the order and plug em into the grid.

  • mixdup 7 hours ago

    The DoD is not exactly known for great efficiency and getting the most value for money

  • fmajid 8 hours ago

    And the technology is incredibly mature, submarine reactors were some of the first reactors, period.

    • croes 8 hours ago

      And they are heavily guarded.

      In the current political climate I prefer energy sources that don’t cause severe damage if sabotaged.

      Did you hear the worries in Ukraine that Russia could hit a wind turbine with a rocket?

      • rafaelmn 7 hours ago

        What's the danger in hitting a micro nuclear reactor with a rocket ? A shitty dirty bomb detonated near the powerplant ?

    • quotemstr 8 hours ago

      Submarine reactors run on super high enriched fuel instantly one could instantly repurpose into a bomb. Lots of gen 4 and 5 reactor designs that combine low cost, compact footprint, and running on less expensive and carefully controlled fuel.

preisschild 6 hours ago

> If we'd build smaller, modular reactors that are literally exactly the same every single time you would begin to get economies of scale

You can also build standardized, modular LARGE nuclear power reactors. The French and the Japanese did it and managed to builds lots of large reactors with relatively short build times