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

111–120 of 144 posts

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#111

Post by sofixa »

Gwypaas wrote: post #110
sofixa wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Pari…

Hinkley Point C, started 12 years later, is going swimmingly I hear! Going to cost the consumers ~$150/MWh and it is starting to look likely that EDF even at that incredibly high price takes a loss on it. > Since construction began in March 2017, the project has been subject to several delays, including some caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,[10] and this has resulted in significant budget overruns. As of May 2022, the…

Started before all problems had been fixed with Flamanville and Olkiluoto, it's a part of the initial generation.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#112

Post by Gwypaas »

sofixa wrote: post #111
Gwypaas wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hinkley Point C, started 12 years later, is going swimmingly I hear! Going to cost the consumers ~$150/MWh and it is starting to look likely that EDF even at that incredibly high price takes a loss on it. > Since construction began in March 2017, the project has been subject to several delays, including some caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,[10] and this has resulted in significant budget overruns. As of May 2022, the…

Started before all problems had been fixed with Flamanville and Olkiluoto, it's a part of the initial generation.

Is not the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#113

Post by Certhas »

pyrale wrote: post #89
Certhas wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: Renewables have downsides, but they are vastly cheaper and more proven. There is no reason to assume that the downsides of various other techs are in any way more manageable. (And ironically some of the solutions proposed for the downsides of nuclear are also what you need for renewables, i.e. storage to maximize use of expensive infrastructure with low opex.)

> And ironically some of the solutions proposed for the downsides of nuclear are also what you need for renewables, i.e. storage to maximize use of expensive infrastructure with low opex. It's exhausting to see this claim see the light so often, despite being debunked so frequently. Nuclear doesn't require storage. Some people claim that economies could be made with storage because then you wouldn't need to build pro…

For the benefit of the bystander: this person actually has no idea what energy seen planning looks like in real life. Economic optimization is absolutely at the core of it. Energy System Models (Essen) are economic optimization models. Depending on country and climate, the factor of the sibling comment of 50% is absolutely realistic.

Also these details don't really matter: Storage is a viable solution to the problem that Renewables are not dispatch able. The only argument against storage could be economic: That the inefficiencies and cost of storage render nuclear cheaper after all.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#114

Post by sofixa »

Gwypaas wrote: post #112
sofixa wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Started before all problems had been fixed with Flamanville and Olkiluoto, it's a part of the initial generation.

Is not the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

When building complex infrastructure for the second/third/etc. time? Of course not. Economies of scale is the term you're looking for.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#115

Post by nomel »

Ekaros wrote: post #80
nomel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 15 MWe / min "load following" capability I know nothing of nuclear. What sets this rate? Is it some system level thermal gradient limitation? Or maybe the complexity of the safety around the movement?

Part of it is also that whole system have large amount of "inertia". We are talking about megawatts of power. First in heated water and then passed through a massive turbine. This whole process carries for a bit. And you want it to run the grid and not the other way around.

> And you want it to run the grid and not the other way around.

As simple as it is, this really blew my mind. I never considered that all the plants need to work together, as a system, each with "inertia", but all without ringing/oscillations. Thanks, I'll need to dig into this deeper!

I can only assume that having grid batteries can really clean things up.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#116

Post by pyrale »

Gwypaas wrote: post #109
pyrale wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And ironically some of the solutions proposed for the downsides of nuclear are also what you need for renewables, i.e. storage to maximize use of expensive infrastructure with low opex. It's exhausting to see this claim see the light so often, despite being debunked so frequently. Nuclear doesn't require storage. Some people claim that economies could be made with storage because then you wouldn't need to build pro…

Assume a capacity factor of 50% then to handle peak loads? Now the nuclear costs $240-440/MWh. That is ridiculous costs, worse than Europe during the last winters Russian war induced gas crisis. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...

It's hard to give numbers for 100% nuclear since no one does that, but yes, France has load factors between 60 and 80% depending on the reactor type.

https://www.iaea.org/fr/newscenter/news/contribution-du-nucl...

The report you quote already cites load factor around 90% for new builds, a 50% load factor wouldn't double the costs. That being said, 90% load factor for a grid with a high share of nuclear is probably extremely optimistic.

The reason such high capacity factors can be reached in countries that have a low nuclear share is that nuclear has an extremely low marginal cost, and is always picked over plants that require fuel.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#117

Post by pyrale »

Certhas wrote: post #113
pyrale wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And ironically some of the solutions proposed for the downsides of nuclear are also what you need for renewables, i.e. storage to maximize use of expensive infrastructure with low opex. It's exhausting to see this claim see the light so often, despite being debunked so frequently. Nuclear doesn't require storage. Some people claim that economies could be made with storage because then you wouldn't need to build pro…

For the benefit of the bystander: this person actually has no idea what energy seen planning looks like in real life. Economic optimization is absolutely at the core of it. Energy System Models (Essen) are economic optimization models. Depending on country and climate, the factor of the sibling comment of 50% is absolutely realistic. Also these details don't really matter: Storage is a viable solution to the problem…

Not sure whether you understand the difference between the prospective world of public analysts, and actually running a power grid. I know there can be a divide between the two, and some self-agrandizement on each side. Picking reliability over efficiency is the sound economic choice.

Please note that my comment is not about the viability of storage for renewables.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#118

Post by Gwypaas »

sofixa wrote: post #114
Gwypaas wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is not the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

When building complex infrastructure for the second/third/etc. time? Of course not. Economies of scale is the term you're looking for.

Hinkley is the fourth time, still no dice.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#119

Post by Gwypaas »

pyrale wrote: post #116
Gwypaas wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assume a capacity factor of 50% then to handle peak loads? Now the nuclear costs $240-440/MWh. That is ridiculous costs, worse than Europe during the last winters Russian war induced gas crisis. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...

It's hard to give numbers for 100% nuclear since no one does that, but yes, France has load factors between 60 and 80% depending on the reactor type. https://www.iaea.org/fr/newscenter/news/contribution-du-nucl... The report you quote already cites load factor around 90% for new builds, a 50% load factor wouldn't double the costs. That being said, 90% load factor for a grid with a high share of nuclear is probably ex…

True, the fixed costs are $20-35/MWh. Deduct that from the figure before doubling. Not that it matters.

Running a pure nuclear grid will never get 90% capacity factor. That relies on only taking the base load and offloading the actual hard part to other generators. Exactly what nuclear proponents like to say will be impossible for renewables.

Re: Westinghouse AP300 Small Module Reactor

#120

Post by Ekaros »

nomel wrote: post #115
Ekaros wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of it is also that whole system have large amount of "inertia". We are talking about megawatts of power. First in heated water and then passed through a massive turbine. This whole process carries for a bit. And you want it to run the grid and not the other way around.

> And you want it to run the grid and not the other way around. As simple as it is, this really blew my mind. I never considered that all the plants need to work together, as a system, each with "inertia", but all without ringing/oscillations. Thanks, I'll need to dig into this deeper! I can only assume that having grid batteries can really clean things up.

The turbines have some perks in this. Batteries can supply power, but they are not as good in smoothing things out than actual large physical masses in thermal power plants and hydro plants.

But it is kinda amazing to know that all of these generators run essentially in sync. If one slows down all of them slow done.

Post reply on HN