Comment on Renewables blow past nuclear when it comes to cheap datacenter juice
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 days agoSMR’s can pretend lower capital costs per watt, when excluding design/prototype time, but trade much more expensive enriched (proliferation risk) fuel that is less efficient
The primary appeal of SMRs is their portability. Pointless for a data center, but vital for a large vehicle like a cruise liner or a shipping frigate.
Replacing our fleet of bunker fuel powered ships would be enormously beneficial.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
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 3 days ago
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.
Sailing ships don’t operate well at the scale we’re building.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 days 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. An aircraft carrier requires 1000 extra crew to supervise the reactor.