comment: >
  
  if your elepants foot is small enough it wont melt through the casing [pushes up glasses anime stlye]
context: This is progress. I was beginning to believe that SMRs were going to be like Fusion Power - always 30 years from being a reality. 
  Now let's see one of them generating power for public consumption, so we can have a little more hope for our planet and ourselves. >
  
  Like other new technologies we'll probably use it for porn or sex first. >
  
  Do not insert the spicy rod! >
  
  If your rod is spicy, speak to your doctor about treatment options. >
  
  "If you experience a reaction that lasts more than four hours... congratulations!" >
  
  You fucking beat me to the four hours joke, good job >
  
  Sorry! But "reaction" sounds so similar to "erection" it pretty much just wrote itself. >
  
  Just for context here, 50 megawatts is enough to power between 35,000 and 50,000 average homes, depending on usage and need. (For example, homes running full electric instead of gas/electric will use more; homes where A/C is in more continuous use will use more; smaller homes and more efficient homes will use less.) >
  
  50,000,000/35,000 works out to 1,428w per household? If so that’s just one 15amp outlet per household - a single toaster oven. >
  
  I have equipment that provides real-time and historical electrical usage for our house so the numbers I am quoting are a real use case...
  Our house is above average for our area in size (\~2800 sqft, 5 years old) and ranges from 800-1500 kWh per month depending on the time of year (winter and summer are the highest due to HVAC).  Rounding, that puts our average instantaneous usage between 1-2 kW (the average for all last year was \~1.650 kW).  During the winter storm around Christmas, my usage peaked at 24kW (electrical-only heating and temperatures below zero for multiple days).  Last night, while we were sleeping, the usage was \~400 W. >
  
  Geothermal heat pumps need to be made the norm for new housing. >
  
  I’m very pro geothermal heat pump but individual economics/geographic constraints are some of the reasons while wide scale deployment today is not possible.
  It’s a no brainer when you ignore economics.  But is someone really going to want to pay an extra $20k+ on a $200k home for geothermal if they are already strapped with cash?  It’s easy to look down on people and say they should do this or that when you are in a better financial situation then they are.  Driving home prices up by situating technology without major price breaks is going to make the wealth divide even worse.  Similar reasons are why you will not see gas cars go away for the next few decades if not 50+ years.
  My area contains heavy limestone less than 10 ft under the ground.  In addition, homes are typically only spaced out 10-20 ft from each other.  Head 20 miles outside the city and implementing geothermal would be much easier.
  The further north you get, the more geothermal can make sense.  You are not going to find many in South Florida installing geothermal. >
  
  We're wanting to replace propane furnaces with geothermal and good lord is it expensive. We'll be saving for a while. >
  
  Yep.  I have a co-worker in upstate NY who was looking into replacing his aging furnaces with geothermal and had sticker shock when he got a few quotes back. >
  
  Cool. We can now power our RTX 4090 cards properly. >
  
  I love the design for the floating modular systems that can set up as a bank off shore.
  Built in cooling and very safe out of the way of humans.
  By FAR the safest way to produce energy for human use. >
  
  How do they handle extreme weather, like hurricanes? >
  
  Would be fine. The reactor itself you put in basically an in ground swimming pool, This cools it and also provides protection from earthquakes.
  Florida has a shitload of pools, and gets hurricanes. For this to be a problem the pool would need the hurricane to drain it, and since most hurricane damage is flooding, its basically doing the opposite.
  A tornado is fine as the top of the pool is a cement slab, go look at videos of houses getting wrecked, house and everything is destroyed / missing the slab is still a perfectly happy concrete slab. >
  
  You're saying that the thing you want to build in the ocean will be fine in bad weather because things built in the ground are fine in bad weather. That is a complete false equivalency. >
  
  I never said in the ocean. >
  
  Then you replied to the wrong comment, because that's what the question was about. >
  
  This is big news. Few countries can afford a big type of nuclear powerplant, and nobody wants intermittency problems caused by FULLY relying on renewables. This is perfect! >
  
  At a low enough price it could be use to power container ships. >
  
  Yeeesss, finally seeing some movement on this front. >
  
  We’ve had nuclear powered subs for a long time. Why is this technology so difficult to make cheaper, safer, and more reliable? >
  
  Because there was a policy that restricted any new nuclear plants being constructed in the US. And I think that also included any renovations to existing plants as well. I believe it was Carter who did that.
  Edit: Realized I’m wrong about this. >
  
  There are two new ones being built in GA right now. Way over budget and behind schedule, but they will be online soon. >
  
  Yeah. I realized I was wrong about my comment. >
  
  Absolutely amazing news! I’m a bit optimistic for the future now. >
  
  The U.S. Energy Department said the newly approved design “equips the nation with a new clean power source to help drive down” planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
  The NRC does a commercial. >
  
  Our nuclear reactors in Ontario Canada are secured by the largest paramilitary police forces in the province. The  power distribution system and the communications systems are vulnerable though to sabotage. Small nuclear generators will necessarily increase the overall need for more security of all systems which might in itself not be a bad result. >
  
  They plan to have many of them at the same site to equal the output of a large reactor. 
  Why? Current reactors are like large custom-built houses. They're expensive. These are more like prefab houses, just ship them from the factory and install. They're also completely self-contained, so even the plant operators have limited control over what happens inside them, much less terrorists. Refueling is just pulling one out, shipping it back to the factory, and putting a new one in, no need to shut down a significant percentage of the power plant. >
  
  In a world where far right goons are attacking substations I hope they do their best for security on these things. >
  
  They dig out a big ass swimming pool, put the reactor in it, fill it, and then put a concrete pad over it. Substations are an easy target for any hack with a rifle as its easily damageable equipment that is left unattended generally in a highly visible area.
  This thing could be floating around in a corn field somewhere and you wouldn't know where, cant even follow the transmission lines as go look at wind farms in fields, its all buried. Build a barn on the pad and it just looks like another farm building. >
  
  And with how people keep shooting up our power grid I hope they have a way of keeping it secure. >
  
  Amazing news.  I'm so optimistic for the future.  Between the very near term expansion of fission like this, combined with wind and solar, and then longer term fusion looking very achievable, we have a real shot at making it.  We'll still be hit hard by existing climate change effects for the next 100 years, but with enough non-carbon energy like this we can significantly slow down the damage and even begin to reverse it. >
  
  I agree, but isn't it depressing that the previous generations fucked the world up so much that we will spend our entire lives fighting to turn it around for a better future that we have no chance of living in? >
  
  The previous generation could have done much better but I think it's sort of inevitable that the technology to support population growth outpaces the technology to do so sustainably. Is it depressing that we have to work on this tech now as we've moved beyond the tipping point of keeping Earth livable, or is it inspiring that we're capable of doing it and surviving? >
  
  
  Is it depressing that we have to work on this tech now as we've moved beyond the tipping point of keeping Earth livable, or is it inspiring that we're capable of doing it and surviving?
  
  
  It can be both. I wasn't trying to detract from the positives. >
  
  This is actually really awesome. I saw a video a while back. Talking about how we could nearly be at the point where nuclear reactors that were considered "modular" could be loaded on to trailers and hauled by semis. Could you imagine the disaster relief potential. 8 hours after a storm or earthquake or something comes one or two of these mobile reactors and power is back on to places and people that need it most. People need to get over the fear of nuclear energy. The risk is minimal. >
  
  That would be cool but the production isn’t the issue after major events.  You need to get the power transmitted and usually you have to rebuild the grid >
  
  About time we can go nucular >
  
  Neither of the solar or wind costs you entered are accurate, and your suggestion about "only needing a tiny amount of storage" is also completely inaccurate.
  Firstly, the solar and wind costs are highly dependent by region and project. If wind turbine blades need to be shipped across continents, that also adds more cost. A grid can incorporate significant amounts of wind (up to 55% even) before needing storage, but solar is different. As soon as you cross about 15%, you need storage for every bit of solar you continue adding. Solar's generating time is far more specific than wind, and needs storage to spread it out.
  It's completely unrealistic to use solar for much more than the excess generation needs during the daytime and evening (storage needed to shift to evening). Wind + Solar is great for carrying a typical grid even up to ~70% renewable. But to reach the last 30%, you need either a lot of excess storage, or an alternative generating source. And nuclear SMRs should be the source that load-follows wind. >
  
  You are using "global LCOE" as if it is an all-encompassing cost estimator. Regional differences account for huge variances in the actual costs, just like I said. LCOE also does not account for the specific timing of solar generation, which I already stated.
  And are you seriously going to try and claim Australia as a good representation of the rest of the world? >
  
  Mate, Australia has a good mix of population densities, distances, geography and climates, it's about as good as anywhere except if we are talking about northern Europe and Canada. I gave you costs from US and Australia, if you have some example of a local cost variance that put solar and wind at three times what I have quoted I would like to see it. >
  
  One step closer to mechwarriors >
  
  Honest question...where will the nuclear waste be stored? >
  
  You can power all of NYC for a year and only generate 800 lbs of waste.  Basically could carry it in a pickup truck.  It can be contained in vessels that are strong enough to hold it and not release radiation.  Note the Navy has been powering ships for 70 years.  The waste problem has been solved for decades. >
  
  How long does the nuclear waste have to be stored for? >
  
  Until we are like Dinosaurs....
  EDIT:  However, I read that it is probably most hazardous for about 40-50 years.  That said, at least risk decreases with time, where as Cadmium and Mercury does not get safer over time. >
  
  So it is a pickup truck of nuclear waste for every city per year, and that waste will essentially never become safe to be around?
  That does not sound like a better option than renewable energy or even global warming in my opinion. >
  
  That nuclear material didn’t spring into existence. We dug it out of the ground. The waste can be stored in the same place, sealed and deep enough in the bedrock to provide near-zero risk of contamination. >
  
  If it is so safe then there is an easy solution:
  The community that uses the nuclear power should have to keep (and pay for maintaining) the nuclear waste.
  The earlier comment gave New York City as an example. If nuclear material is used to power New York, then New York should have to keep that waste for the next 10k years or so. Don't try to pawn it off on some other community just because they have fewer people. The cost of maintaining that waste also should not be spread out to all taxpayers. In this example New York should have to pay all costs related to that nuclear waste for then next 10k years. >
  
  No argument here. >
  
  Wake me when Mr Fusion is a dealer installed option. >
  
  If anybody is interested, I think this is what they look like.  if they put an AI controller in there we may need Captain Kirk to deal with it. >
  
  Like 60 feet tallish??? Just a shot in the dark >
  
  We should have had molten salt reactors, which are much safer than fissionable waste reactors. From what I have read, the reason we have some much hazardous waste is because the US government wanted reactors that its spent fuel can be weaponized, or used in breeder production for warheads.
  So you see kids, radioactive waste is a legacy from greedy, selfish and long-dead politicians and government employees. >
  
  Article says it’s too expensive, compared to actual renewable energy.  Get out of here with nuclear energy.  That stuff is for idiots.  Where’s the upside?  It’s dangerous and more expensive?!  Hell yeah, sign us up!  /s >
  
  Solar and Wind are not capable of providing electric power consistently over a 24-hour cycle. And if we are encouraging people to switch to EVs for their cars, we need a way to generate a lot of electricity overnight (obviously solar can't do this) for them to charge. >
  
  If only they had some kind of battery to store up that energy during non peak periods . . . >
  
  Most people with an EV plug their car in to charge at night. It would be super inefficient to use solar to charge a battery at your house to then charge your car. >
  
  economics of nuclear energy
  E: shills >
  
  I worked closely with the Nuclear Power industry for years. The NuScale SMR is so different from the ones outlined in that Wikipedia article, that making a comparison isn't apples to oranges - it's like comparing the Perseverance Mars Rovers to a Kia. Just like the rover, the layers of (expensive) complexity in a full size nuclear plant are orders of magnitude higher than for the Kia/SMR. Worse really, it's more like a Kia vs a mars rover the size of a few city blocks.
  On the other hand, the actual final costs for the NuScale SMR is really an unknown, and any number of Bureaucratic Interventions (like pressure from special interests at the state and federal and most importantly corporate level) could easily quadruple (or more) the costs. >
  
  US Union Craftsmen will make sure building one takes 3 times as long and costs 5 times as much as planned. >
  
  The A bomb pisses me off.
  Without it we'd likely have nuclear powered phones and game controllers. >
  
  Now we need to figure out how to secure them. Russia, unfortunately, showed how easy it is to screw around with them, and a bunch of hicks shooting up power stations showed we have an adequate supply of idiots to make this a big potential issue. >
  
  Just discovery or approval means nothing if its not used at mass scale to solve some wide scale problems. >
  
  "It’s the seventh nuclear reactor design cleared for use in the United States. The rest are for traditional, large, light-water reactors."
  *Cough its the seventh nuclear reactor design cleared for civilian use. You can argue semantics and specific fearures that make a reactor a SMR or not but the Navy has used small modular reactors for decades. >
  
  I noticed the article makes no mention of the nuclear waste that will be created. And doesn't factor in the costs of transporting it and storing it. 
  Let's say you can put it in containers. How much do those cost? And then they get transported to a storage area. How much does that cost? And say it gets stored in a deep drilled area. How much did the drilling cost? How much does monitoring cost? 
  And what about the inevitable accident, how much will that cost?
  The fact that none of this is mentioned makes me think these factors make the real cost of operating these reactors much higher than other alternatives. Like solar, wind, etc. >
  
  
  I noticed the article makes no mention of the nuclear waste that will be created.
  
  Finally allow Yucca Mountain to open. >
  
  Imagine one of these at every gas station in the country. Combined with better batteries, would basically be the missing link to wide EV adoption. >
  
  Some napkin math: these things produce ~50 MW. Fast DC chargers right now put out ~0.350 MW, some can theoretically go up to 1 MW. One of these reactors could be charging 50-150 cars at a time. >
  
  So like 1 Buc ee’s >
  
  I wonder if that NuScale reactor was designed by people who designed naval nuclear reactor. Naval reactors fit pretty well into the SMR description. >
  
  Considering how poor of a job most businesses do at maintaining infrastructure, I can't imagine anything going wrong with this... >
  
  Can I have one for my house? >
  
  Just buy one when it is available. >
  
  For an apartment complex it would probably be a good long term investment