Live data from Hacker News

Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

popularmechanics.com

21–30 of 554 posts

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#22
post #2

"Officially safe" is a hilarious term which tries to predict the possibility of an MCA or "Maximum Credible Accident." Of course, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima were also "officially safe" when they were built.

I think picking a few accidents and saying that all nuclear is unsafe is such a disingenuous argument any more. All of those plants were based on extremely old designs and there have been tons of improvements. How about we focus on the "portable" nuclear power that is used by the US Navy for submarines and aircraft carriers safely.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#23
post #12

This is huge. Not only are micro reactors far more economical, it dramatically reduces the need to maintain a massive nationwide grid and provides flexibility to people in remote areas including greater autonomy. Efficiency should be greater without massive transmission line losses. Might start fewer fires in California too.

The economics are yet to be borne out. I believe the NuScale cost (feel free to correct me if this information is wrong) is still above the cost of renewables and storage [1] but below that of traditional PWRs (684Mw @ $3 billion [2], ~25 cents/kwh [3]), which is competitive in places like Hawaii (which is still relying heavily on diesel fuel for what solar isn't providing) and geographies with limited land or renewa…

Thing is this kind of design benefits massively from economies of scale, same kind of thing that has drawn the price of PV down and other green energy.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#26
post #2

"Officially safe" is a hilarious term which tries to predict the possibility of an MCA or "Maximum Credible Accident." Of course, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima were also "officially safe" when they were built.

This seems like fretting over a term.

Everything is 'safe' until we discover it isn't and improve. Many things have improved over times. Calling them safe seems fine, we can do so understanding the process of learning and advancing.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#27
As a huge fan of nuclear power, I never felt like NuScale style 'SMR' were all that great of an idea.

Yes, it gains you some of the economics of factory construction and that you can start small and scale a location, but on the other side you lose that again because you lose the economics of scale that traditional PWR gets.

I really believe we should be a nuclear society by now, and that regulations both around reactors and fuel availability prevented this from happening. In the 1960 lots and lots of innovative reactors were build, often with relatively low budgets at that. The amount of untapped potential in nuclear energy is incredible. We don't need fusion, fission is plenty energy dense, if we can't figure out how to make fission practical, we want with fusion either.

Yet here we are in the year 2020 and we are still building new PWR reactors. But the reality is, in the US it is essentially impossible to build anything else. Regulations are designed so that the only reactor that can really get approval is a PWR.

If you attempt to build anything new, you have to basically pay the government to study your design and after a unknown amount of time and money, the government might develop a new regulatory framework. By the time that happens of course you have run out of money already, no buissness plan that depends on the government figuring out how to regulate a new type of reactor would ever really happen.

The good thing at least is that the DoE in the last 5 years seem to have realized that their whole approach was a problem and they have done a lot of good things to try to change. Outside of the US the energy sector is government controlled or to small for a nuclear reactor startup to have a large enough market to make a new reactor worth it.

Canada has established itself as basically the only viable place for new reactor development, with Terrestrial Energy and Moltex Energy (moved from Britain to Canada because regulation).

So, good luck to NuScale, I hope they can prove me wrong and deploy many of these in an economical way.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#28
post #24

Article gave absolutely no indication of its dimensions. How "tiny" is it exactly?

> The reactor measures 65 feet tall x 9 feet in diameter. It sits within a containment vessel measuring 76 feet tall x 15 feet in diameter.

Per: https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#30
post #2

"Officially safe" is a hilarious term which tries to predict the possibility of an MCA or "Maximum Credible Accident." Of course, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima were also "officially safe" when they were built.

What a bad faith post. > Three Mile Island Was handled reasonably well, resulted in safety improvements to procedures and designs for future reactors. From https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3... > The approximately 2 million people around TMI-2 during the accident are estimated to have received an average radiation dose of only about 1 millirem above the usual background dose. To put this int…

Inherent safety of CANDU:

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...

But keep in mind that the NRX reactor it was based on had an accident:

https://www.cns-snc.ca/media/history/nrx.html

(famously, Jimmy Carter was part of the NRX clean-up crew).

Post reply on HN