zlacker

>>tedsan+(OP)
~$125B per year would be 2-3% of all domestic investment. It's similar in scale to the GDP of a small middle income country.

If the electric grid — particularly the interconnection queue — is already the bottleneck to data center deployment, is something on this scale even close to possible? If it's a rationalized policy framework (big if!), I would guess there's some major permitting reform announcement coming soon.

>>heyden+82
Dcs will start generating power on site soon. I know micro nuclear is one area actively being explored.

>>deelow+md
Small or modular reactors in the US are more than 10 years away, probably more like 15-20. These are facts and not made-up political or pipe-dreaming techno-snobes.

>>jscott+pj
> Small or modular reactors in the US are more than 10 years away, probably more like 15-20

Could be 5 to 10 with $20+ bn/year in scale and research spend.

Trump is screwing over his China hawks. The anti-China and pro-nuclear lobbies have significant overlap; this could be how Trump keeps e.g. Peter Thiel from going thermonuclear on him.

>>JumpCr+Gj
I work in the sector and it's impossible to build a full-sized reactor in less than 10 years, and the usual over-run is 5 years. That's the time for tried and tested designs. The tech isn't there yet, and there are no working analogs in the US to use as an approved guide. The Department of Energy does not allow "off-the-cuff" designs for reactors. I think there is only two SMRs that have been built, one by the Russians and the other by China. I'm not sure they are fully functioning, or at least working as expected. I know there are going to be more small gas gens built in the near future and that SMRs in the US are way off.

>>jscott+wp
> it's impossible to build a full-sized reactor in less than 10 years, and the usual over-run is 5 years

I'm curious why that is. If we know how to build it, it shouldn't take that long. It's not like we need to move a massive amount of earth or pour a humongous amount of concrete or anything like that, which would actually take time. Then why does it take 15 years to build a reactor with a design that is already tried and tested and approved?

>>perryi+hw
Well, you do have to move a lot of earth and pour A LOT of concrete :) Many steps have to be x-rayed, and many other tests done before other steps can be started. Every weld is checked and, all internal and external concrete is cured, treated, and verified. If anything is wrong, it has to be fixed in place (if possible) or removed and redone. It's a slow process and should be for many steps.

One of the big issues that have occurred (in the US especially) is, that for 20+ years there were no new plants built. This caused a large void in the talent pool, inside and outside the industry. That fact, along with others has caused many problems with some projects of recent years in the US.