Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 116 posts

Re: Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer

#41

Post by beoh »

thrower123 wrote: post #28

Per gigawatt-hour, nuclear power as it stands may very well be the safest power source that we have got already. The biggest hurdle is irrational fear and the regulatory barriers consequent.

I wouldn't necessarily call it irrational. While there are far less incidents in nuclear power, their severity and long term harm are much greater while being very hard to get back under control as we have seen in the past. I would assume many would prefer to have broken a bone a few times in their life instead of a single shot in the head. This fear is very much understandable in my opinion.

I do not mean to imply that there are less fatalities from other energy sources, especially since those harming the environment might cause the end of us all. It's much like the fear of flying, it is safer, but if something happens you cannot run nor stir to the side, you are completely of control and the outcome will be most certainly fatal.

Re: Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer

#42

Post by nine_k »

vidanay wrote: post #15

I have a hard time accepting their premise that they are designing for "cheaper" based on that artists rendering (which I assume is based on some real design elements). Curvy roofed buildings and arced cooling ponds are not at all the most cost effective construction methods. I want truly cheap nuclear that sits in unobtrusive cheap concrete boxes like the old Bell telephone exchange buildings.

An arched construction can cover more area with less material and without internal columns; this was realized back in ancient Roman times. So curves may be there for a reason. (The pond is by an artistic license, without doubt, though.)

The important parts not on picture:

* Small reactors units, built on a factory and delivered by truck.

* Reactor units are unified, so the economies of scale kick in.

* Full passive cooling, sufficient when all external power is off.

* Containment vessels for the reactor units, so the danger of any leaks is greatly limited.

What makes me wonder is the complete absence of a smokestack to siphon off any excessive second-circuit steam. The artist also did not draw an electric switching / transformer yard and a power line. Do they plan electricity egress by some underground superconductive cable? (Would be cool, but not cheap; currently only makes sense in very dense urban environments.)

Re: Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer

#43

Post by neuronic »

nickik wrote: post #32
NotPaidToPost wrote: post #12

> "My concern about NuScale is that they believe so deeply that their reactor is safe and doesn't need to meet the same criteria as the larger reactors, that it's pushing for lots of exemptions and exceptions," says Edwin Lyman, acting director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists Bit of a red flag there... Edit: The article further states: > "Licensing this design is challenging. It's s…

Union of Concerned Scientists are an anti-nuclear lobbyist group. Anything they say should be dismissed out of hand. They have 0 credibility and have spent the last 50 years spreading lies and fear about nuclear energy. The problem here is actually that the people at 'Union' are deeply convinced that nuclear is bad and no nuclear project no matter how much time was spent on safety has ever been endorsed by them. This…

> Union of Concerned Scientists are an anti-nuclear lobbyist group.

Or maybe they are just concerned about a power source which has proved catastrophic multiple times in the past.

Re: Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer

#44

Post by nine_k »

benj111 wrote: post #10
jabl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely multiple units will be deployed on each site, allowing them all to take advantage of shared infrastructure like grid connections, spent fuel storage, security etc.

Yes I was going to add that their best chance is being put on the sites of old reactors.

I also wonder if converting old coal-fired plants is possible. If the turbines, generators, and the power distribution stuff is in place and in a good shape, maybe setting up an alternative source of steam could be more economical than building the whole thing from scratch.

Re: Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer

#45

Post by C1sc0cat »

antris wrote: post #22
C1sc0cat wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if the swimming pool leaks ?

What happens if a windmill explodes?

Some exotic runaway condition - not sure if generators can do that - electric motors if wired incorrectly self destruct in amusing ways.

More likely you have an over speed failure and the it runs out of control and self destructs flinging the blades and other heavy objects about.

Re: Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer

#46

Post by jabl »

nine_k wrote: post #44
benj111 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I was going to add that their best chance is being put on the sites of old reactors.

I also wonder if converting old coal-fired plants is possible. If the turbines, generators, and the power distribution stuff is in place and in a good shape, maybe setting up an alternative source of steam could be more economical than building the whole thing from scratch.

Typical coal plants use superheated steam at around 540C and turbines designed for that, whereas LWRs produce wet steam at 300C, so no.

High-temperature reactors can produce superheated steam, but then it's not a LWR and you give up on all the knowhow how to run those. The Chinese are planning to deploy gas cooled pebble bed reactors which could replace the coal furnace at existing plants (HTR-PM).

Re: Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer

#47

Post by aurelwu »

rwcarlsen wrote: post #40
aurelwu wrote: post #18

Their webpage [0] has the construction cost at $3 billion for a ~700 MW reactor. This is about the same as the originally projected cost for the Flamanville EPR with 1600 MW, which now is expected to end up costing ~$10 Billion. Now even if we assume - and thats a big assumption - they really can build the reactor for $3 Billion, that still equals ~$7 Billion in construction costs for a Flamanville sized reactor. The…

That $3 billion cost estimate is for first-of-kind of a reactor/plant that is intended to be replicated many times. The cost per plant is expected to drop significantly with total number of deployments. Also the plant is designed to have significantly lower operating costs, shorter construction time (which means shorter loan duration, lest capital wasted on interest). The Olkiluoto 3 (EPR) power station in Finland ha…

I know, but they said the same about the EPRs, so I remain sceptical that it will work that way. Solar,Wind,Batteries,Hydrogen Production,Synthetic Fuel Production is becoming cheaper year by year so Nuscale need not only to meet their initial targets and then decrease the cost for future reactors but they also need to end up beating the other technologies costwise & safety & safety perception wise. Their Design might be faster than requiring 15 years, but I doubt it is as fast to build as solar or wind.

Re: Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer

#48

Post by nine_k »

781 wrote: post #30
CodeCube wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean ... millions of people who barely maintain their homes avoid pool leaks, and when it does leak, it tends to be slow enough that they can call in a professional to fix the problem. Imagine a fastidiously maintained facility ... I think they can probably work it out

You have to consider stuff like terrorist attack and so on. Nobody is so incentivized in making your backyard pool leak.

The pool, as far as I can tell, is built pretty sturdy. Breaking this amount of concrete takes a lot of high explosives, and breaking it underwater is an order of magnitude harder. The Allies at WWII had to go to a great length to damage German dams, while using multiple heavy bombers.

If terrorists were in possession of such amounts of powerful explosives, and a capacity to place them inside a highly guarded area, they could use that to blow up a city center to a much greater destructive effect.

Re: Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer

#49

Post by jabl »

nickik wrote: post #35
Simulacra wrote: post #14

Why not thorium?

Thorium only has advantages if you use a breeder. Uranium is actually better for most applications. And the development of any type of reactor is already expensive, adding the additional challenge of regulatory burden to change fuels is totally pointless. The real debate is about reactor design, not fuel type. I also started to get interested in Thorium, but I learn that its not about Thorium but rather your reactor…

> Thorium only has advantages if you use a breeder.

A thermal breeder, that is. In the fast spectrum the U-Pu cycle is superior.

And even so, a thermal Th breeder has a very low breeding ratio, and in the thermal spectrum poisons are worse, meaning that the reprocessing volume to produce a unit of fuel will be frickin huge. Good luck making that economical.

Re: Making Nuclear Energy Smaller, Cheaper And Safer

#50

Post by ajross »

thrower123 wrote: post #28

Per gigawatt-hour, nuclear power as it stands may very well be the safest power source that we have got already. The biggest hurdle is irrational fear and the regulatory barriers consequent.

So... following that logic, air travel is the safest method available, so your argument is that we should stop regulating it? It's the safest method available because it is well regulated with an attendant long-standing culture of safety -- so much so that even a single breakdown (c.f. the 737 MAX) is considered an existential disaster for a manufacturer.

For an argument from the other side: you're notably looking at (well regulated!) electrical industry statistics for your safety metrics, but if you include unregulated (military) applications things don't look nearly so rosy. There are a surprising number of reactors sitting on the bottom of the ocean right now...

Post reply on HN