Comments by "Bob thebomb" (@bobthebomb1596) on "'The way to go': People of Brisbane questioned on push for nuclear power" video.

@rattusfinkus France has been running on mostly nuclear for decades without issue and has some of the cleanest and cheapest electricity in Europe.
3
@rattusfinkus No, it really is not. Average build time for a nuclear reactor is about seven years.
3
@rattusfinkus Aus, yes. That's not unreasonable. You have wasted even more years than the UK.
3
@polarbear7255 That's true, I was talking about full sized plants. SMR's can have the advantage in areas without complex grid systems, remote locations, for industrial support etc
3
@Poorlineforeva They have existed for decades, but only for military use.
2
Just one thing, not all SMRs are the same. The ones planned for near term use are mainly based on conventional PWR technology (e.g. the Rolls Royce reactors).The ones offering advantages such as enhanced safety, waste burning etc are based on alternative technologies and will not be available for a few years yet.
2
@buildmotosykletist1987 Not so. The Rolls Royce SMR is not in production, though it could be with funding (The PWR3 is military only). You may be correct on US reactors, there are so many project ongoing in the US. The Chinese SMR is at Hainan and began construction in 2021. They also refer to their high temperature gas reactor as an SMR, but I am not sure at this point if it counts as a production or research reactor.
2
@tassied12 Cost is always a factor, even for the military. Cost isn't the only factor however. For example: For every 24GWh of solar electricity generated you need 2GW of installed capacity and 12GWh of storage. Obviously based on an average 12 hours of daylight and 100% efficiency. Then land area and resource cost/availability also need to be factored in. It's not as straightforward as simply looking at the cost per MWh to generate. Every country and/or region requires their own solution based upon local conditions.
2
@rattusfinkus We are generating nuclear power, so we sort of do have the infrastructure to look after it. Most delays are indeed due to planning approvals etc, which is why other countries manage to build quickly while the West does not.
2
@rattusfinkus Puts you in the SMR market, especially if you are an industry with high power/heat demand.
2
@margaretarmstrong2445 They do yes. At one point last week the UK was receiving 3GW from France as it was night and wind was not performing.
2
@rattusfinkus It's better than no electricity, or electricity from coal and gas when the renewables are offline. Also SMR's such as the XE100 will be able to give process heat direct for certain industrial applications, which is more efficient that converting electrical energy back into heat.
2
@rattusfinkus But there is sod all storage, no where near what would be required for grid scale operation.
2
@rattusfinkus Which is why they are perfect for combined power and process heat applications. It also makes far more sense to produce hydrogen from spare nuclear capacity than it does to install excess renewable capacity to produce hydrogen to then burn it to make electricity when the RE is offline.
2
@rattusfinkus Ah, it will be there soon. Isn't that your argument against nuclear?
2
@rattusfinkus Where will all the minerals come from for those millions of EV batteries, PV cells and RE magnets? You cannot drive your EV and power the grid at the same time. Countries require TWh of storage, not MWh. By the time you have started to put that in place nuclear will be available.
2
@rattusfinkus So in the morning after a wind-less night, everyone finds their car battery is flat as the grid has used the power stored in them.
2
@rattusfinkus Or you could just build a nuclear power plant and have 24/7 power available for 40+ years.
2
@Poorlineforeva To be fair, ship classes have become rather confusing of late. USS Bainbridge (DLGN-25/CGN-25) was originally classed as a nuclear powered destroyer but later re-classified as a cruiser, it displaced 9,100 tons. (USS Truxton CGN-35 displaced only 8659t despite being a cruiser. The US built a further six CGN's at ~11,000t and one at 15,500t. By comparison the Arleigh Burk destroyer displacements grew from 8,200 tons for the flight I to 9,700 ton for the flight IV. The latest Zumwaalt destroyer on the other hand displaces just short of 16,000 t!
1
 @buildmotosykletist1987 As far as I am aware the only SMR in current production uses PWR technology (Chinese ACP100), though it is still a demonstration reactor.
1