←back to thread

The time has finally come for geothermal energy

(www.newyorker.com)
160 points riordan | 1 comments | 17 Nov 25 13:55 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
yawaramin ◴[17 Nov 25 15:48 UTC] No.45954633[source]▶
It's nuclear fission. It's always been nuclear fission (well, at least since the '50s) and it will continue to be until we commercialize fusion reactors. Everything else is nice to have but it's like NIH syndrome.
replies(6): >>45954676 #>>45954881 #>>45956094 #>>45960416 #>>45961594 #>>45964607 #
thinkcontext ◴[17 Nov 25 17:58 UTC] No.45956094[source]▶
It could be but the US and EU have so far been unable to build commercial fission reactors without going 2x+ over budget in time and money. China is having success but even they are not projected to have nuclear account for more than single digit percentages of their generation.

Maybe SMR's, thorium, 4th gen, etc will work out, but maybe not.

replies(2): >>45956811 #>>45958402 #
ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[17 Nov 25 19:04 UTC] No.45956811[source]▶
The US Navy consistently builds reactors on-time and in-budget
replies(3): >>45959047 #>>45961071 #>>45980829 #
1. thinkcontext ◴[19 Nov 25 15:31 UTC] No.45980829[source]▶
The US Navy doesn't build them, private companies do. None of the SMR companies that I am aware of have attempted to use designs from naval reactors. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they use highly enriched fuel which is a no-no for civilian reactors.

In any event, if your more general point is that naval reactors indicate its possible that SMRs can be built on time and budget, I don't disagree. It certainly is possible. NuScale was the furthest along of the SMR companies and had their project implode before it got off the ground. So, its also possible for them to crash and burn.

So, I'll stick with my classification of SMRs as "maybe it will work out, maybe not".