Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by natmaka » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 3:35 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #478

revax wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nuclear serves as a baseload and backbone Not in France, the nuclear plants here can do some load following (to some extent). >You will not find pro-nuclear supporters upset with France's decision to reduce their dependence on nuclear. In fact you will often find support. I cannot agree here, there is a growing movement mainly lead by Jean-Marc Jancovici deploring the shutdown of safe and profitable nuclear power pl…

> Not in France, the nuclear plants here can do some load following (to some extent). They can in do but the economics makes more sense to run high for long periods. The nuclear output of France doesn't typically vary much throughout the day, but yes they do have the capacity to. But yeah, all we are fighting for is that nuclear is __part__ of the solution (not __the__ solution. Big difference).

> all we are fighting for is that nuclear is __part__ of the solution (not __the__ solution. Big difference).

It seems to me that all this is about the balance between the relative importance of nuclear in the solution and its costs, along with the risks it induces.

Having nuclear as part of the solution implies mass-production of plants parts (building a few plants is much more expensive and projects are nearly always way behind schedule), risk and waste, decommission costs... If nuclear power could solve the challenge (that is to say let us live as we do now while reaching the GIEC's objectives) it could be justified, but it fails far from it.

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

#522

Post by natmaka » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 4:30 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #483

natmaka wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not "suggesting" anything, I just let us remember that France plans to considerably reduce its nuclear power capacity. If my assertions aren't clear or if a proof is missing please feel free to ask. FYI I'm French. > France has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita Apples and oranges... France has wayyyy less factories than Germany, however it imports goods produced elsewhere. CO2 emitted in order to produce…

> Apples and oranges... I can change that to CO2eq/capita/kWhr and it is still true ([1] above shows that). > Nuclear plants and their waste are dangerous, I'm not trying to dismiss that. But you also shouldn't dismiss the impacts of other resources. There is no free lunch here. For example, heavy metal contaminants are stable and stay toxic forever. We likely have to deal with these contaminants similarly to nuclear…

Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union. Source: https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019

> There is no free lunch here

Indeed, however the risk induced at run-time and by its waste seems higher with nuclear than with renewables.

>> Other think that we may have to chose a "100% renewables" option.

>This relies on two things happening (one of, or a combination). 1) The grid is massively overbuilt, 2) battery storage massively improves.

A third quest is local production (solar roof panels and the like).

A 4th quest is energy and matter savings (less production => less nefarious emissions).

Also let's not neglect that "renewables" is a mix (solar, wind, hydro...).

As for the 1) (grid) we also have many subpathes, continental-level interconnections and smartgrid being the most prominent, all useful for all "sources" (even nuclear) and all already actively explored.

> The argument for nuclear is, again, based on what we have right now

What we have now is ageing nuclear powerplants (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Franc... , this is also true in the US ) needing huge maintenance-and-security-related retrofits, and running projects of plant-building which fail or run massively over-schedule and over-budget (see Flamanville and Olkiluoto). Fukushima bumped up the NIMBY effect. Massive and expensive R&D done for 10's of years delivered no quantum leap (breeders, for example, albeit benefiting for huge R&D budgets, are in the mud since the 1950's... but some nuclear advocates consider them today as a promising path!).

Financing a nuclear powerplant becomes more and more difficult because it is very capital intensive and only realistic along with the aforementioned mass-production challenge, and the fact that the cost of renewable energy production falls sharply.

In other words one nuclear powerplant costs way too much, we lost the capacity to build it on budget and schedule, there are less and less sites willing to host a plant... and we need to build many (10x the existing capacity, for an all-nuke gridpower, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Methods... , given that it is vastly insufficient when it comes to our climate-related goal ) in a short timeframe.

Moreover, after 70 years of nuclear plant activity, we don't have waste long-term repositories, hence we will offer dubtious gifts to our children, and their children, and so on...

Is it really a realistic path or a dead-end?

Are we willing to bet on this or (XOR) on deploying on the 3 major leads summarized above? Each egg in the nuclear basket isn't used for the main 4 quests, and therefore isn't IMHO wisely used.

In France the nuclear sector maintains approximately 220000 jobs, and this is a huge factor for politicians (in order to be elected you better avoid to condemn those jobs).

> In the public discourse we only discuss electricity and transportation

Sadly this is true and I'm also concerned. We do "still need new technologies", however "I'm just not willing to put all my eggs in one basket" nor do we "want to bet too much on things going just perfect", and giving the urgency (we indeed need to quickly reach a "negative emissions" status) I'm convinced that the quest 4 cannot be avoided: we need to reduce the amount of energy and stuff we "use". This is the only sure method readily available. Most politicians and citizen hate it because this is a dark promise.

The potential for CC&S is limited in Europe. About this and some "100% renewables" approaches: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wene.128

There are even more ambitious plans, some not from crackpots: https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(19)30225-...

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

#523

Post by Aeolun » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:19 AM UTC

0-_-0 wrote: post #237

Aeolun wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX can launch it into space?

And if something goes wrong at launch spread it over a nice big area

Hmm, that’s a point. But I believe we haven’t had any unexpected falcon disassemblies in a while.

Alternatively, maybe we can railgun it into space.

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

#524

Post by godelski » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 5:48 AM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #521

godelski wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not in France, the nuclear plants here can do some load following (to some extent). They can in do but the economics makes more sense to run high for long periods. The nuclear output of France doesn't typically vary much throughout the day, but yes they do have the capacity to. But yeah, all we are fighting for is that nuclear is __part__ of the solution (not __the__ solution. Big difference).

> all we are fighting for is that nuclear is __part__ of the solution (not __the__ solution. Big difference). It seems to me that all this is about the balance between the relative importance of nuclear in the solution and its costs, along with the risks it induces. Having nuclear as part of the solution implies mass-production of plants parts (building a few plants is much more expensive and projects are nearly alwa…

Well it isn't like there is any other technology that can d it. The idea that renewables can do 100% is still theoretical. Likely, but theoretical. I'd rather not put all my eggs in one basket. Rather I'd look at Sweden and France which have some of the lowest CO2eq/capita (for energy). We should look to the future, but we should also follow what is already working. We can figure out how to burry a few dozen six packs worth of radioactive material after we solve the much larger problem. Besides, if you've been paying attention to this thread, that's a solved problem (just costly and needs will).

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

#525

Post by godelski » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:11 AM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #522

godelski wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apples and oranges... I can change that to CO2eq/capita/kWhr and it is still true ([1] above shows that). > Nuclear plants and their waste are dangerous, I'm not trying to dismiss that. But you also shouldn't dismiss the impacts of other resources. There is no free lunch here. For example, heavy metal contaminants are stable and stay toxic forever. We likely have to deal with these contaminants similarly to nuclear…

Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union. Source: https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019 > There is no free lunch here Indeed, however the risk induced at run-time and by its waste seems higher with nuclear than with renewables. >> Other think that we may have to chose a "100% renewables" option. >This relies on two things happening (one of, or a combination). 1) The grid…

> Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union.

I'm not sure why this is relevant. France has constantly been one of the best in Europe and Germany has been one of the worst (revisiting my link[0]). I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. That everyone can improve? Of course. That Germany cares more than France? Well probably. It is a much larger problem then them for France. France left their hose and all their faucets on over night. Germany busted a water main and their house is sinking. Makes sense that they are more concerned. Or maybe you're suggesting that German had a larger reduction in emissions? Congrats, they are almost at the peak of France's output. Either way, I don't get what you are suggesting here.

More importantly, why are you still thinking I'm anti-renewables? Have I not been clear on this matter? I'm also not convinced you're reading what I write anyways because we've addressed several of your concerns already and you're pushing claims on me that I don't hold and have already reiterated that I do not hold. I might as well quote the Jabberwocky.

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...

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

#526

Post by 36337827336 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:47 AM UTC

marshray wrote: post #42

I think it's disingenuous to argue the economics of nuclear without mentioning: "DOE reported that it faced an estimated $494 billion in future environmental cleanup costs — a liability that roughly tripled during the previous 20 years." https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696956.pdf

Cleanup and storage is easy in the technical sense, over those timescales and for what's being gained we end up ahead. I say leave storage to the spooks to circumvent the nimbys and call it a win. Let congress argue after they've had a taste of the results.

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

#527

Post by dang » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 7:34 AM UTC

ses1984 wrote: post #442

p1mrx wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between a dam and a pool; the pool is supported by the ground, and even if you bash holes in it, the water still has to find somewhere to go. Also, pools are not typically built from concrete and stainless steel. The safety requirement here is not "doesn't leak", it's "holds most of the water for 30 days (after which water is not required)". You would have to get an implausibly-large leak, du…

Is your intense short sightedness and complete lack of imagination actually the same quality or two different ones?

Whoa, personal attacks will get you banned on HN. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not comment like this here?

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

#528

Post by pvaldes » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 9:53 AM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #514

pvaldes wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you just make an off-shore in-ocean "farm" Not! Ocean is inherently unstable!. The first serious storm would dislodge and damage the whole farm crashing one module against the other before to vomit them in the shore. Some modules just would dissapear. And then you have a humongous environmental damage and a really expensive rescue problem trying to clean the fragmented mess.

AFAIK, put em deep enough - which isn't that deep - and you're basically fine? It's why subs (AFAIK) DGAF about storms. Mutual impact issue sounds pretty resolvable with a big steel frame and the like.

You will have still many deep currents that shouldn't be underestimated. Is not so simple.

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

#529

Post by pvaldes » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 9:55 AM UTC

therealdrag0 wrote: post #509

pvaldes wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you just make an off-shore in-ocean "farm" Not! Ocean is inherently unstable!. The first serious storm would dislodge and damage the whole farm crashing one module against the other before to vomit them in the shore. Some modules just would dissapear. And then you have a humongous environmental damage and a really expensive rescue problem trying to clean the fragmented mess.

Don't offshore wind farms do okay?

Is a totally different scale than a nuclear powerplant. A chain of entire cities will not be made unhinhabitable if a wind farm dislodges. Fishermen industries and touristic areas will not be distroyed. We have more room for losing one or two each 20 years (that is what will happen) and rebuild it again

Fish cages and other offshore structures can be moved to earth in tornado season or when necessary. Moving a nuclear farm, would be much more difficult.

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

#530

Post by pvaldes » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 10:10 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #423

pvaldes wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Deep sea ecosystems are extremely fragile and we need to leave them as is if we want to feed people Time to just get rid of the mess hiding it under the rug and saying that "There is not our fault, it was yet like that when we arrived and now is somebody else's problem" has passed. We deserve better, much more honest and much more smart people this time.

There is plenty of evidence - of no impact. As I said this has been extensively studied and there's so much radioactive material in the ocean that it makes no difference. Also maybe you misunderstood the post because dumping in the ocean wasn't a real proposal. The point is that containment is solved, and indeed solved by very smart people. It's politics and general ignorance that has hampered nuclear power, not tech…

> There is plenty of evidence - of no impact.

There is plenty of evidence of the opposite in fact and is not difficult to find at all. We can choose to close the eyes to not see it, but the truth is stubborn:

Techa river (Russia): Used as dumpster from dismantled nuclear submarines until 2004. 25 times more probable than normal of having limb and organ malformation in newborn babies from people living there, plus a bonus 40% increase of probability of having cancer. This is the harvest of just 50 years of activity. What would you call that?