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

First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 332 posts

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#111

Post by mytailorisrich »

Laaas wrote: post #103

> The decision to cancel the project followed an update from NuScale this year regarding the cost of building the reactors, which had soared to $9.3 billion from $5.3 billion because of rising interest rates and inflation. Even $5.3B seems very expensive. For reference, (the new Finnish) Olkiluoto-3 was €11 billion, for 1600 MW. The article says 6 * 77 MW = 539 MW! How is it that we've become so bad at building?

Olkiluoto-3's budget also overran a lot to reach 11b. It's also an extra reactor at an existing nuclear plant so perhaps that somehow reduces costs, and it's built by a very established company.

Now, on the other hand, as far as I know NuScale never built a commercial reactor before... so we'll see how many of their current projects actually come to life.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#112

Post by javier_e06 »

The article:

By Ivan Penn and Brad Plumer Published Nov. 8, 2023Updated Nov. 9, 2023, 3:42 a.m. ET

A developer of small nuclear reactors announced on Wednesday that it was canceling a project that had been widely expected to usher in a new wave of power plants.

NuScale Power, a company in Portland, Ore., said it lacked enough subscribers to advance the Carbon-Free Power Project, which had been expected to deliver six of the company’s 77-megawatt reactors. Although more than two dozen utilities had signed up to buy electricity from the reactors, which would be in Idaho, that number fell short of what NuScale said it needed to move forward.

The Carbon-Free Power Project was the result of an agreement between NuScale and Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, which supplies electricity to public power providers in seven Western states, including California. The project was first proposed in 2014.

“This decision is very disappointing given the years of pioneering hard work,” said Mason Baker, chief executive of Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems. “We are working closely with NuScale and the U.S. Department of Energy on next steps to wind the project down.”

The decision to cancel the project followed an update from NuScale this year regarding the cost of building the reactors, which had soared to $9.3 billion from $5.3 billion because of rising interest rates and inflation.

NuScale had needed to triple the number of customers for the Carbon-Free Power Project by February. The company, which also has an agreement to deliver its technology to Romania, told investors that it would repurpose materials developed for the Carbon-Free Power Project for other customers.

NuScale’s stock price fell more than 20 percent, to $2.37, in after-hours trading. Its value has declined more than 70 percent in the past 12 months.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#113

Post by chris222 »

Laaas wrote: post #103

> The decision to cancel the project followed an update from NuScale this year regarding the cost of building the reactors, which had soared to $9.3 billion from $5.3 billion because of rising interest rates and inflation. Even $5.3B seems very expensive. For reference, (the new Finnish) Olkiluoto-3 was €11 billion, for 1600 MW. The article says 6 * 77 MW = 539 MW! How is it that we've become so bad at building?

For that price you can build almost any combination of wind/solar plus storage. It will probably use less land when you factor in exclusion zones and require fewer operators and resources. It will also have no major calamity risk and an easy clean up and decommissioning.

The Tesla megapack price is about 300 million dollars per 1GWh of storage these days.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#114

Post by theultdev »

hotpotamus wrote: post #108
Laaas wrote: post #103

> The decision to cancel the project followed an update from NuScale this year regarding the cost of building the reactors, which had soared to $9.3 billion from $5.3 billion because of rising interest rates and inflation. Even $5.3B seems very expensive. For reference, (the new Finnish) Olkiluoto-3 was €11 billion, for 1600 MW. The article says 6 * 77 MW = 539 MW! How is it that we've become so bad at building?

> How is it that we've become so bad at building? What industry would you prefer your children to go into? Construction or just about anything else?

So you prefer other people's children to do your construction, got it.

That's fine.. I guess, but the world needs construction workers, including in America.

If my son wanted to build nuclear reactors I'd be A-Okay with that.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#115

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #102
scythe wrote: post #2

>With the price of renewables dropping precipitously, however, the project's economics have worsened, and backers started pulling out of the project. I would expect this to continue limiting investment in nuclear, since the outlook for renewables just keeps getting better, and the stumbling blocks are increasingly jejune, like we can't build powerlines fast enough.

The problem is those prices are wrong; they are pricing the hard thing. Renewable sells when it wants to, for dirt cheap. And they don't sell when they don't want to. At that point, today, typically natural gas picks up the ball. Other storage is as much in its infancy as SMRs, as is "demand response". The pricing people compare so favorably isn't pure renewables, it's that renewables + fall back fossil mix.

Renewables have a lumpy profile of energy provided. Nuclear has a flat profile.

But demand is also lumpy, so the issues of matching supply to load are basically identical.

What do you think France uses all the gas on its grid for? Why do they have excess electricity in the middle of the night that they need to tempt people to use domestically or export to other countries?

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#116

Post by SiempreViernes »

BasilPH wrote: post #107

David Roberts from Volts talked about why he thinks SRMs are overhyped last week. Here's the transcript[^0], but his main points are _(I fed the whole transcript to GPT-4-turbo model for this)_: - SMRs are not yet delivering on their promised benefits and cost savings due to challenges in scaling and production. - The SMR concept is yet to prove itself with efficient and cost-effective factory-made parts and repeatab…

That link is just a 404 to me

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#117

Post by vinay427 »

theultdev wrote: post #114
hotpotamus wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it that we've become so bad at building? What industry would you prefer your children to go into? Construction or just about anything else?

So you prefer other people's children to do your construction, got it. That's fine.. I guess, but the world needs construction workers, including in America. If my son wanted to build nuclear reactors I'd be A-Okay with that.

Not the parent commenter, but I read their comment perhaps more charitably as describing a general societal attitude rather than their personal beliefs that they would instill on their children.

No idea if I’m correct, but it’s maybe worth offering them the benefit of the doubt here.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#118

Post by delfinom »

hotpotamus wrote: post #108
Laaas wrote: post #103

> The decision to cancel the project followed an update from NuScale this year regarding the cost of building the reactors, which had soared to $9.3 billion from $5.3 billion because of rising interest rates and inflation. Even $5.3B seems very expensive. For reference, (the new Finnish) Olkiluoto-3 was €11 billion, for 1600 MW. The article says 6 * 77 MW = 539 MW! How is it that we've become so bad at building?

> How is it that we've become so bad at building? What industry would you prefer your children to go into? Construction or just about anything else?

Depending on the area, construction can pay really well and be a stable form of long term employment. Usually the trades part of construction is best rather than being a general laborer.

In my area of NY suburbs, there's such a shortfall of tradesmen now due to boomer retirement en-masse, you see alot of younger guys showing up as plumbers, electricians, hvac and more that you would never ever have seen just 5 years ago.

I wouldn't care if my own kids did it. As long as they figure out their life plan in advance, who cares.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#119

Post by bilbo0s »

Laaas wrote: post #103

> The decision to cancel the project followed an update from NuScale this year regarding the cost of building the reactors, which had soared to $9.3 billion from $5.3 billion because of rising interest rates and inflation. Even $5.3B seems very expensive. For reference, (the new Finnish) Olkiluoto-3 was €11 billion, for 1600 MW. The article says 6 * 77 MW = 539 MW! How is it that we've become so bad at building?

This is a bit unfair.

You're comparing untried and untested SMR design to slapping up an EPR next to two BWRs if I'm remembering the Finnish project correctly. While EPR is newer, we as mankind have a good understanding of how to build and operate one.

Now of course Vogtie cost us 30 or 40 whatever billion for a couple of trifling PWRs, so your larger point still stands. I just think it was dumb of NuScale from the outset to go out marketing over-promises on the idea of SMR. If you took an educated look at the stats and numbers proponents of SMRs were out touting, it's doubtful that even China could have delivered on that. How they thought they could do it in the real world of Idaho is beyond me? They must have had an ace up their sleeves? Or perhaps they expected the government to play a much larger role? Not sure.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#120

Post by theultdev »

vinay427 wrote: post #117
theultdev wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you prefer other people's children to do your construction, got it. That's fine.. I guess, but the world needs construction workers, including in America. If my son wanted to build nuclear reactors I'd be A-Okay with that.

Not the parent commenter, but I read their comment perhaps more charitably as describing a general societal attitude rather than their personal beliefs that they would instill on their children. No idea if I’m correct, but it’s maybe worth offering them the benefit of the doubt here.

The general societal attitude is what influences their personal belief, and vice versa at scale.

But their point remains the same, "let someone else do it" (the quiet part: "it's below us").

It's a very negative and elitist attitude that's prevalent in bubbles where people don't have to work normal jobs.

Post reply on HN