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

    SMR’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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 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.