• humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    The primary appeal of SMRs is their portability

    There are micro/nano nuclear designs meant to fit in a truck trailer. They are under 1mw power, and not meant to be affordable for those who need more power than that. They are not space efficient to power ships. They may never be made, and just investor scams.

    As for shipping, civilian use would be nightmare. Virginia class nuclear subs cost $2.7B. 5x more 2.2B more than best diesel submarines and have operational costs that are 4x higher than diesel subs. Wind power is path to decarbonizing shipping. That chinese airborne blimp windmill posted recently would work.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Virginia class nuclear subs cost $2.7B.

      Submarines aren’t normally used for bulk transport of civilian cargo.

      The prototype NS Savannah cost $46M to build in 1955 (roughly $500B today) with half the cost being its nuclear engine. So, on the high end of modern container shipping, but with the benefits of rarely needing to refuel.

      And that’s before an economy of scale on bulk construction.

      Wind power is path to decarbonizing shipping.

      Sailing ships don’t operate well at the scale we’re building.

      • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        32 minutes ago

        The nuclear industry likes to lowball the cost of SMRs (heart of nuclear ships), but the overall cost difference of power types is the truth. Aircraft carriers are also 4x the cost of diesel, but with only 2x the operational costs (inclusive of similar functions of managing planes). An aircraft carrier requires 1000 extra crew to supervise the reactor.