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

121–130 of 332 posts

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

#121

Post by audunw »

chris222 wrote: post #113
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.

Solar will certainly use more land unless you build on rooftops or do agrovoltaics. But that’s not the norm for large scale production yet.

Wind depends on how you calculate area used. The zone that excludes other wind turbines and residential buildings will be much larger. But the area used by just the base is obviously quite small. When placed between farm plots the area usage is very effective.

The risk of accidents in the US is probably extremely small. I wouldn’t personally be worried about. Especially with NuScKe which should be passively safe. Though I would have said the same about Japan before Fukushima so you never know (yes, I know the death toll was negligible, but the effect it had on nearby residents is still catastrophic)

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

#122

Post by nickpp »

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?

Regulation. No matter how you find it (a drag, useful or even life-saving), one thing is certain: it significantly increases costs and time to build.

Do you know how Golden Gate or the Empire State Building were built on budget and fast? With risks and lost lives.

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

#123

Post by bitter_old_man_ »

I'm so glad I left the nuclear industry thirteen years ago!

I worked in nuclear power for about eight years. I felt like I was taking crazy pills. There's a strong vein of cognitive dissonance running through the industry relating to its economic viability. Nuclear power has always been the most expensive available energy production method. So every time I hear talking heads say "nuclear power is the only power production method that can be built fast enough to address climate change" my blood starts to boil. Every nuclear power plant in history has been pitched as "sure it's stupid expensive up front, but the power it produces will be too cheap to meter". And then they cost 5x as much and take 5x as long as predicted to be built and also cost more than predicted to operate. But the next generation won't have any of the problems that all previous generations had? It's like listening to silicon valley people rave about AI or humanoid robots or driverless cars. "Sure, the past six generations didn't deliver what they promised, don't worry about that, don't think about that, the next one is going to be amazing!"

Goodbye nuclear.

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

#124

Post by Reason077 »

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?

> "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!"*

Olkiluoto-3's materials and labour costs were locked in well before the current inflationary cycle. If they started out today the cost would likely be much higher.

Also, NuScale is a novel new design. SMRs haven't been commercially deployed anywhere yet, so there's a lot of extra risk and cost associated with building and certifying the very first ones. After all, it cost Boeing an awful lot more to produce the first 777 aircraft than it did to knock out the 1000th.

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

#125

Post by ZeroGravitas »

gravitronic wrote: post #18
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.

A harder stumbling block compared to nuclear is land mass requirements per Mwh: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source

Their data source suggests that rooftop solar, onshore and offshore wind and nuclear are basically tied on that metric so not sure what problem you're seeing?

Is it the ground mounted grid solar? I'm sure some countries will happily trade extra land use for much cheaper energy.

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

#126

Post by sumtechguy »

Pat_Murph wrote: post #106
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?

We've gotten better at billing than building.

One I can automate the other not so much

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

#127

Post by hotpotamus »

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.

I don't have and have never wanted children, so you are correct that it is not my personal belief. Yes, it's a question of the social status afforded to certain professions. The ones that actually build and maintain a functioning society seem low on that hierarchy. I'm willing to bet that the lawyers litigating whether or not a nuclear power plant will be built have have a higher income than the people who build it.

This is my perception as someone from the working class who doesn't get one of those big FAANG salaries; they don't check that when you sign up here.

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

#128

Post by ceejayoz »

nickpp wrote: post #122
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? Regulation. No matter how you find it (a drag, useful or even life-saving), one thing is certain: it significantly increases costs and time to build. Do you know how Golden Gate or the Empire State Building were built on budget and fast? With risks and lost lives.

Finland is hardly a low-regulation country, especially compared to Idaho.

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

#129

Post by sumtechguy »

delfinom wrote: post #118
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?

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…

I worked with one of the major HVAC companies in that area. There was not one dude under 50 in that building. 'we can not even get people to apply and we are throwing money at them'. That was 10 years ago. That may have changed by now. But probably not much.

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

#130

Post by hotpotamus »

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.

Oh I'd prefer a lot of things that are never going to happen. It's more a question of social status - what pays more, construction worker, or lawyer who argues for/against construction?
Post reply on HN