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

Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 554 posts

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

#31

Post by m0zg »

core-questions wrote: post #9
mimixco wrote: 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…

> Communists who did not care about what happened to Ukrainians

They didn't really care what happened to _anybody_, not just Ukrainians. Ukrainians (as well as about 30% of Russians) just happened to live in that particular location. The plume made it all the way to the Nordics and Germany, and I, as a kid, had to take iodine tablets in Russia, even though officially everything was "under control" for a few days. Then the narrative shifted to showing the heroism of the "liquidators", never fully acknowledging how dangerous any of this really was.

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

#32

Post by nickik »

sarcasmatwork wrote: post #4

fyi, OSU college has a 1-megawatt research reactor. https://www.oregon.gov/energy/facilities-safety/facilities/P... https://www.corvallisadvocate.com/2012/got-nuke-state-of-the...

One of the problems in the US is that there are research reactors and production reactors, nothing in between. Research reactors are to small to prove out many concepts.

So startups have to essentially go from nothing to first commercial reactor in one step, without iteration.

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

#33

Post by fuckyah »

EricE wrote: 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.

What happens if this blows up? (Terrorist bombing, etc)

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

#34

Post by rubber_duck »

nickik wrote: post #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 react…

>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.

You mean they lose operational efficiency ? Economies of scale come from the ability to mass produce.

You forgot to mention the largest differentiator - eliminates the possibility of a global catastrophe.

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

#35

Post by foxyv »

nsxwolf wrote: post #24

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

Just barely too big to go on a standard tractor trailer. But small enough to be portable by a oversize load tractor trailer. Kind of like the blades for very large wind turbines in west Texas.

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

#36

Post by tehabe »

kyrra wrote: post #28
nsxwolf wrote: 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

you forgot to mention that those 23 m high containment vessels are places in in a pool which of course have to be much bigger than that: "The reactor and containment vessel operate inside a water-filled pool that is built below grade."

We'll see of this is in any way or form sustainable, especially since uranium is also a finite ressource.

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

#37

Post by foxyv »

baron816 wrote: post #11

Have they announced an estimate of how much a reactor/cost of energy production will be? That’s kind of the most important factor, isn’t it?

$0.24 per kwh is a rough estimate I've seen for NuScale. Typically initial costs for microreactors right now are around $0.25 to $0.30/kwh which is about the cost of energy created by diesel generators. Natural gas is much lower. However they hope that as we make a lot of them the cost will drop.

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

#38

Post by rtkwe »

sarcasmatwork wrote: post #4

fyi, OSU college has a 1-megawatt research reactor. https://www.oregon.gov/energy/facilities-safety/facilities/P... https://www.corvallisadvocate.com/2012/got-nuke-state-of-the...

North Carolina State University has a little 1 MW training reactor for it's Nuclear Engineering track.

https://www.ne.ncsu.edu/nrp/about/pulstar-reactor/

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

#39

Post by adrianmonk »

EricE wrote: 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.

I'm not an expert, but I'm not convinced about it reducing the need to maintain a nationwide grid.

Nuclear reactors take ages to ramp up and down. It's basically going to be generating the same amount of power 24x7, but demand is going to fluctuate. The more other areas you're connected to, the more opportunity there is to send that power to someone who can use it.

Obviously there's a law of diminishing returns at some point, so maybe the grid doesn't need to be as large as possible.

There are alternatives like energy storage (batteries, etc.), but you'd have to compare all the costs and benefits.

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

#40

Post by deeeeeplearning »

tehabe wrote: post #36
kyrra wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

you forgot to mention that those 23 m high containment vessels are places in in a pool which of course have to be much bigger than that: "The reactor and containment vessel operate inside a water-filled pool that is built below grade." We'll see of this is in any way or form sustainable, especially since uranium is also a finite ressource.

>We'll see of this is in any way or form sustainable, especially since uranium is also a finite ressource.

I believe at current consumption rates there is still several hundred years worth of uranium. Presumably Fusion will have been figured out by then or we've killed ourselves with a climate disaster or something worse.

Post reply on HN