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

Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 257 posts

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#71

Post by throw0101d »

hwillis wrote: post #14

And a contrasting article from IEEE: https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuc... > Samuel B. Morris, the general manager and chief engineer of Los Angeles’s Department of Water and Power, traveled all the way to Geneva in 1955 to attend the first International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. There, he made a case for small reactors, arguing that because the “number of small units…

> For me, SMRs don't pass the smell test. Buying one big plot of land for a reactor, building one power interconnect, having a localized water impact is way easier and cheaper than many.

Some things would depend on the specific location and the grid around it:

The Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in New Brunswick may be 'overkill' because when it goes down every few years for inspections/retooling, there's little other redundancy available. SMRs would be useful for that regional grid: install 3-4 and one can go down with less fuss.

In (e.g.) Poland there were small/medium coal-fired generation stations near coal mines. If the mines are now empty (or retired for climate change), then the grid connections could be reused for SMRs on an existing generation site: less need to find a new site and build new power pylons, etc.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#73

Post by DennisP »

bell-cot wrote: post #68
DennisP wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and none of solar's advocates are utopian at all .

The general public doesn't care about utopian-measuring contests between different groups of zealots. They want cheap electricity on demand, safety, and a sense of control. Solar does a pretty good job of offering that. Nuclear? Nope.

I agree that the utopian tendencies of various groups are irrelevant. So I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#74

Post by DennisP »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #51
mayama wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if its cheaper to build small reactor vessels, MANY of the other costs become more expensive in larger numbers. There is no way SMR could beat solar+battery power cost even now. With sodium and other batteries projected to reduce storage cost, it is even more unlikely that SMR could be price competitive in future grids. SMR is the only way that dying western nuclear industry could attempt to deal with ballooni…

To a first approximation, China does not build nuclear power. Nuclear's share of power production in China is 4% and dropping. It seems to me that the main reason China keeps building a relatively tiny amount of nuclear is strategic. Reasons like ensuring they never forget how and ensuring they always have buildable designs so that if something changed they could ramp up the program. And probably even more likely: nu…

But coal is still 49%. The whole point of nuclear in a carbon-free, mostly-renewable grid is to avoid needing enormous amounts of storage and overproduction. That's a need that doesn't come up when you're still half fossil.

If you want to decarbonize as fast as possible, it makes sense to focus on rolling out wind/solar/battery as fast as possible for now, but keep developing nuclear technology to cover the last bit where it starts getting especially expensive to replace fossil with renewables without losing reliable power. That's exactly what China appears to be doing. They're not just building a few reactors, they're also the world leaders in developing various GenIV designs, like molten salt reactors.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#75

Post by fasterik »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #70
fasterik wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas and hydro are firm power. You're correct that nuclear is not a good backup power source, but that's not the suggestion. The question is whether adding high-capacity-factor firm generation reduces total system cost. In regions where hydro and geothermal are unavailable, nuclear is the next best low-carbon option. I think you're underestimating the costs and difficulties associated with 100% renewables, esp…

I think you're underestimating the costs and difficulties associated with 99.99% renewables and/or using it as a straw man against the highly inexpensive and achievable 95% renewables. You're also underestimating the costs of using nuclear to achieve 99.99% reliability on top of a grid with 95% renewables: in that scenario you need nuclear capable of supplying ~100% of your power. In which case you might as well ditc…

>in that scenario you need nuclear capable of supplying ~100% of your power.

Where are you getting that from? Again, nuclear doesn't need to be a full backup, and nobody is suggesting we ditch renewables for nuclear. A perfectly viable solution would be a grid with a majority of power coming from renewables and storage, with enough nuclear generation to reduce the amount of overbuild necessary and to stop burning natural gas.

From this article:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266627872...

>Individually, each firm technology delivers substantial cost reductions relative to portfolios restricted to wind, solar, and energy storage alone. Additionally, because each technology occupies a distinctive functional niche in the electricity system, having all of these technologies available optimizes the utilization rate of each resource and reduces system costs by up to 10% relative to cases with just one class of firm resource.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#76

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

DennisP wrote: post #74
bryanlarsen wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a first approximation, China does not build nuclear power. Nuclear's share of power production in China is 4% and dropping. It seems to me that the main reason China keeps building a relatively tiny amount of nuclear is strategic. Reasons like ensuring they never forget how and ensuring they always have buildable designs so that if something changed they could ramp up the program. And probably even more likely: nu…

But coal is still 49%. The whole point of nuclear in a carbon-free, mostly-renewable grid is to avoid needing enormous amounts of storage and overproduction. That's a need that doesn't come up when you're still half fossil. If you want to decarbonize as fast as possible, it makes sense to focus on rolling out wind/solar/battery as fast as possible for now, but keep developing nuclear technology to cover the last bit…

The problem is that the economics of a ”firming”/”peaking” nuclear reactor is absolutely stupid due to essentially being only fixed costs.

It is already stupidly expensive when running at 100% 24/7. Now try running it only when renewables and storage doesn’t deliver.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#77

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

hvb2 wrote: post #2

> but SMRs should be cheaper and easier to construct. The word should is doing some real heavy lifting there. Especially given the subject. I guess we'll know in 2030 when one should come online.

It just stupidly expensive if it is completed on time and budget.

To make the figure at least palatable for public funding the project assumes enormous learning effects for subsequent reactors.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#78

Post by mchusma »

briffle wrote: post #58
hwillis wrote: post #14

And a contrasting article from IEEE: https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuc... > Samuel B. Morris, the general manager and chief engineer of Los Angeles’s Department of Water and Power, traveled all the way to Geneva in 1955 to attend the first International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. There, he made a case for small reactors, arguing that because the “number of small units…

> If it's so much cheaper to build multiple small reactors, just build one big plant with 24 small reactors. That is literally the plan with several designs like NuScale (and I think TerraPower). The plan with NuScale is to ship the reactors on rail or barge, and then truck it in the last few miles. So they cost savings is in not having to custom desgin the actual components for each site, and build them on site. Sta…

> If it's so much cheaper to build multiple small reactors, just build one big plant with 24 small reactors.

The biggest costs to nuclear are associated with each of them being unique snowflakes. They need to be standardized and mass produced to bring down costs.

So the dream is many big plants (eg starting 10+ per year), which is what France did and China does, but since we can’t seem to have that here, small reactors are an attempt to solve that.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#79

Post by elcritch »

mayama wrote: post #41
hwillis wrote: post #14

And a contrasting article from IEEE: https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuc... > Samuel B. Morris, the general manager and chief engineer of Los Angeles’s Department of Water and Power, traveled all the way to Geneva in 1955 to attend the first International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. There, he made a case for small reactors, arguing that because the “number of small units…

> Even if its cheaper to build small reactor vessels, MANY of the other costs become more expensive in larger numbers. There is no way SMR could beat solar+battery power cost even now. With sodium and other batteries projected to reduce storage cost, it is even more unlikely that SMR could be price competitive in future grids. SMR is the only way that dying western nuclear industry could attempt to deal with ballooni…

If solar+battery were cheaper wouldn't the new AI data centers be opting to pay to build that rather than nuclear or LPG options?

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#80

Post by bryanlarsen »

DennisP wrote: post #74
bryanlarsen wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a first approximation, China does not build nuclear power. Nuclear's share of power production in China is 4% and dropping. It seems to me that the main reason China keeps building a relatively tiny amount of nuclear is strategic. Reasons like ensuring they never forget how and ensuring they always have buildable designs so that if something changed they could ramp up the program. And probably even more likely: nu…

But coal is still 49%. The whole point of nuclear in a carbon-free, mostly-renewable grid is to avoid needing enormous amounts of storage and overproduction. That's a need that doesn't come up when you're still half fossil. If you want to decarbonize as fast as possible, it makes sense to focus on rolling out wind/solar/battery as fast as possible for now, but keep developing nuclear technology to cover the last bit…

The most cost efficient new-build grid is 90-98% solar/wind/battery depending on your locales insolation & wind coverage. (Source Ember Energy) The remaining 2-10% is nat gas, if you have a piped source, or coal if you don't.

But 98% renewable doesn't mean you can hit 100% by adding 2% more of something else, it means your something else has to supply ~100% of the power 2% of the time.

If China is aiming for that cost-optimal 90-98% renewables, that means they need to build a lot of coal.

Post reply on HN