The author of the article "M. V. Ramana" is long-time opponent of nuclear energy , mostly because of nuclear weapon proliferation concerns.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._V._Ramana" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._V._Ramana</a><p>See for example:<p>"Bombing Bombay? Effects of Nuclear Weapons and a Case Study of a Hypothetical Explosion", 1999 International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)<p><a href="https://www.ippnw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Bombing-Bombay.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.ippnw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Bombing-Bom...</a><p>"Costing plutonium: economics of reprocessing in India", M.V. Ramana, J.Y. Suchitra, 2007<p><a href="https://www.geocities.ws/m_v_ramana/nucleararticles/IJGEI_Vol27_No4_Reprocessing.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.geocities.ws/m_v_ramana/nucleararticles/IJGEI_Vo...</a><p>"India, Pakistan and the Bomb", Scientific American, 2001<p><a href="https://nci.org/01/12/07-08.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://nci.org/01/12/07-08.pdf</a>
What I find interesting is how little the sales pitch seems to have changed. "Yes, smaller reactors lose economies of scale, but we'll make it up through factory production, standardization and repetition" apparently sounded plausible in the 1950s too
Look, I prefer nuclear over fossil fuel every day of the week. It's the great hope of the non-carbon electricity sources.<p>In practice it is expensive to build, expensive to run, and really expensive to clean up. And that's before we add the risk of meltdowns.<p>Economically it makes no sense, not at the returns level, not at the timescale level, and certainly not at the political level. (If a US president can shutter an offshore wind farm unilaterally, imagine the risk to a nuclear plant that is 50% complete, and not yet fueled.)<p>There's a reason they're mostly run by govts. Govts are the only providers who don't have a money motive.<p>Personally I think research into storage, coupled with "wider" grids geographically, make solar and wind far more financially attractive.<p>Private capital has no appetite for nuclear, and few govts are left with both financial ability, and political will, for 30 year projects.<p>And if you think fission is expensive, wait till you find out what fusion-on-earth costs...
Seems there's no mention of Russia in the article, but they seem to have a rich tradition of small reactors[0].<p>My understanding is there's still ongoing research/commercialization work but the fabled "many and cheap" production state hasn't been reached there either<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_small_nuclear_reactors" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_small_nuclear_...</a>
... cracks .... cracking ... cracked .. cracks..<p>there's a remarkable similarity to the life of these units.<p>They worked, until they didn't.<p>"ah, but we're much wiser now" is of course in this too.
We are much wiser now, because the nuclear industry learns and improves. Similar evolution can be seen for example in aircraft industry, flying in 1970s was much more dangerous with many more incidents then flying now.<p><a href="https://www.voronoiapp.com/travel/Airplane-Safety-Timeline-1970-2024-3876" rel="nofollow">https://www.voronoiapp.com/travel/Airplane-Safety-Timeline-1...</a><p><a href="https://accidentstats.airbus.com/fatal-accidents/" rel="nofollow">https://accidentstats.airbus.com/fatal-accidents/</a>