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

Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

westinghousenuclear.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 144 posts

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#91

Post by pyrale »

elihu wrote: post #55
acidburnNSA wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to solve this problem is to build a huge shipyard-based reactor-making gigafactory that makes floating gigawatt scale reactors that are floated to location. You can operate them offshore or on land. This was actually attempted in the 1970s by Offshore Power Systems (joint venture between Westinghouse and Newport News). They bought and installed the world's largest gantry crane on Blount Island in Jackson…

A side benefit of being on or near the ocean is immediate access to a thermal sink. Nuclear power plants (and also fossil fuel thermal plants) divert substantial amounts of water for cooling. If fresh water is increasingly in short supply around the world, that's a problem. The usefulness of the ocean as a thermal sink though depends on water temperature which can vary a lot depending on where you are.

> The usefulness of the ocean as a thermal sink though depends on water temperature which can vary a lot depending on where you are.

No. The difference between pumping water at 15°c or 30°c is negligible when you're cooling water at 325°c. You may have to pump a tiny bit more water, but that's a non-problem when you have an ocean.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#92

Post by pyrale »

pbmonster wrote: post #71
booi wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it actually cheaper and easier? Seawater isn’t exactly known for its ease of use and non-corrosiveness and fouling is a real problem. Not to mention all the sea life that isn’t going to respond well to high temp water spewing out..

> Not to mention all the sea life that isn’t going to respond well to high temp water spewing out.. Ideally, you're not dumping the hot water back into the harbor. At least from a naive theory perspective, you could put huge cooling towers on deck and cool the reactor 100% through evaporative cooling. Bonus: the huge steam/mist cloud out of the cooling tower could help delay global warming through marine cloud bright…

> At least from a naive theory perspective, you could put huge cooling towers on deck and cool the reactor 100% through evaporative cooling.

That's usually not done with saltwater plants, because there are more issues with mineral deposit, i.e. salt.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#93

Post by pyrale »

killjoywashere wrote: post #68
booi wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it actually cheaper and easier? Seawater isn’t exactly known for its ease of use and non-corrosiveness and fouling is a real problem. Not to mention all the sea life that isn’t going to respond well to high temp water spewing out..

Nuclear subs and carriers operate in salt water all the time. It's "just" chemistry

Nuclear subs and carriers produce a fraction of the power of a commercial nuclear power plant.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#94

Post by sofixa »

epistasis wrote: post #49
dirtsoc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's sad is that it's mainly the US that has problems with this. China has managed to bring multiple of this reactor design to fruition while the US still screws around with building just two. I live in Georgia and the almost decade of overruns and corruption are being about to be paid for by Georgia Power customers via rate hikes.

France and Finland have had excessive difficulty with their EPR. My hypothesis is that modern economies with high wages will simply not be able to build a nuclear reactor economically. It appears to require a certain amount of 20th century technological advancement, but not so much economic advancement that labor costs are too high. France had a much better track record with nuclear in their first round of building.…

Because those were the first EPRs ever. Now that most caveats and issues are discovered, next ones should be drastically faster and easier.

> France can also build large construction projects without the massive cost overruns that the US has had

Not always, some easily go overboard, like with the Parisian Philharmonic, or the absolutely massive Grand Paris Express (~200km of new high capacity metro lines around Paris) which has seen the budget go up from an original estimate of 19 billion to 35 billion (euros). Completely normal considering the scale and complexity, but still.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#95

Post by przemo_li »

epistasis wrote: post #49
dirtsoc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's sad is that it's mainly the US that has problems with this. China has managed to bring multiple of this reactor design to fruition while the US still screws around with building just two. I live in Georgia and the almost decade of overruns and corruption are being about to be paid for by Georgia Power customers via rate hikes.

France and Finland have had excessive difficulty with their EPR. My hypothesis is that modern economies with high wages will simply not be able to build a nuclear reactor economically. It appears to require a certain amount of 20th century technological advancement, but not so much economic advancement that labor costs are too high. France had a much better track record with nuclear in their first round of building.…

French scenario could have been avoided is much better loans where secured. Delays skyrocketed costs for to fat % on those financing agreements.

Which is 101 of big projects anyway. Hard to understand why french project wasn't deemed to risky to investors.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#96

Post by kortex »

zo1 wrote: post #78
Mistletoe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always say this, but if it was so great wouldn’t someone have bought some? The money never seems to work out.

I doubt it was the money that killed this. Probably regulatory and environmental concerns. Imagine the headlines and phrasing of news articles. Instead we got this crap that is a floating barge of environmental ruin: https://karpowership.com/en/global-presence Notice how it's only been installed in 3rd world countries.

Wow they really bury the lede on what fuel they run on. They say "dual fuel" but don't say which those fuel are, but external searching suggests natural gas or low-sulfur heavy fuel oil. Not sulfur-free, so I'm sure these are great for emissions.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#97

Post by _djo_ »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #69

We could use it here in South Africa. The bulk of our power comes from coal fired plants but due to the low quality coal for cost reasons and thus high sulphur and lack of preventative maintenance it results in boiler tube leaks nearly every week. Some of our plants are at the end of their lives and their replacements are no better off due to corruption and a malady of technically incompetent builders (looking at you…

South Africa almost got something similar, the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). Well ahead of its time and excellent technology, with Westinghouse involved as a partner at one point and having bought some of the IP. [0]

If only that had been continued.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_modular_reactor

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#98

Post by acidburnNSA »

zo1 wrote: post #78
Mistletoe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always say this, but if it was so great wouldn’t someone have bought some? The money never seems to work out.

I doubt it was the money that killed this. Probably regulatory and environmental concerns. Imagine the headlines and phrasing of news articles. Instead we got this crap that is a floating barge of environmental ruin: https://karpowership.com/en/global-presence Notice how it's only been installed in 3rd world countries.

You might think that, but OPS went through an astounding amount of regulatory review. They got an actual license from the NRC to build the first 8.

This article goes into detail of you have access: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1975/05/12/the-atlantic-g...

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#99

Post by pfdietz »

cinntaile wrote: post #76
acidburnNSA wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to solve this problem is to build a huge shipyard-based reactor-making gigafactory that makes floating gigawatt scale reactors that are floated to location. You can operate them offshore or on land. This was actually attempted in the 1970s by Offshore Power Systems (joint venture between Westinghouse and Newport News). They bought and installed the world's largest gantry crane on Blount Island in Jackson…

Why did no one buy a floating reactor?

Too expensive.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#100

Post by pfdietz »

scythe wrote: post #31
gnabgib wrote: post #8

Discussed 9 hours ago, 140 points, 99 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35816789

Highlight of the thread, IMHO, from 'beefman: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35818261 >Not small, modular, or new. But certainly a decent reactor. They clearly want something to slot in against the GE BWRX-300. But they would probably be better served by going all-in on their eVinci reactor, which is small, modular, and new > https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/evinci-mi...

Tiny reactors like that have been suggested for remote locations, like mining sites, but they make little sense. Renewables + batteries + diesel would be cheaper.
Post reply on HN