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

131–140 of 332 posts

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

#131

Post by pradn »

It looks like the biggest problem with nuclear is not the safety or whatnot, it's just that as a civilization, we just can't build them without cost overruns and massive delays. And this is a loss, because we need non-variable energy sources to augment wind/solar/tidal.

Perhaps the other way to solve the energy transition is to lean heavily into mass storage of variable energy sources. If you have enough energy storage, you don't need so much of the base energy suppliers like gas/coal/nuclear.

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

#132

Post by kalleboo »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #116
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

It seems like it's been truncated from https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-voltscatalyst-pod-crossover-you

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

#133

Post by bryanlarsen »

audunw wrote: post #121
chris222 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acciden…

Nuclear and solar also can dual-use most of their footprint. For nuclear, the keep-out zone becomes a de facto nature preserve. And a pretty good one at that, since the keep out is enforced well.

Solar installations can be grazed. Alternatively, bifacial panels can be installed vertically east-west and the strips between can be farmed. Or the panels can be placed on rooftops. Or used to shade parking lots. Et cetera.

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

#134

Post by theultdev »

hotpotamus wrote: post #130
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.

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?

What was your point in asking this "question of social status"?

Nothing in this thread points to lack of workers, but to over regulation.

On a personal note, I'd prefer many less lawyers, especially the ones who argue against the one energy source that works.

I'd prefer many more trade workers, much less in academics.

I'd prefer people to not view jobs as a social status and appreciate the contributions people give to society.

A plumber can make quite a bit of money, work up to their own business, not have to deal with huge amounts of debt, and actually provides needed services for society.

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

#135

Post by bluefirebrand »

pradn wrote: post #131

It looks like the biggest problem with nuclear is not the safety or whatnot, it's just that as a civilization, we just can't build them without cost overruns and massive delays. And this is a loss, because we need non-variable energy sources to augment wind/solar/tidal. Perhaps the other way to solve the energy transition is to lean heavily into mass storage of variable energy sources. If you have enough energy stora…

Wonder if it's worth digging into why that's the case. It seems like it's a lot more than just the cost of materials + labour that's the problem.

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

#136

Post by thescriptkiddie »

pradn wrote: post #131

It looks like the biggest problem with nuclear is not the safety or whatnot, it's just that as a civilization, we just can't build them without cost overruns and massive delays. And this is a loss, because we need non-variable energy sources to augment wind/solar/tidal. Perhaps the other way to solve the energy transition is to lean heavily into mass storage of variable energy sources. If you have enough energy stora…

This problem isn't confined to nuclear energy either. Just about the only thing our society is still able to build quickly and cheaply are roads.

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

#137

Post by snapplebobapple »

pradn wrote: post #131

It looks like the biggest problem with nuclear is not the safety or whatnot, it's just that as a civilization, we just can't build them without cost overruns and massive delays. And this is a loss, because we need non-variable energy sources to augment wind/solar/tidal. Perhaps the other way to solve the energy transition is to lean heavily into mass storage of variable energy sources. If you have enough energy stora…

Just a point of clarity, we need demand resources, which means variable at our command vs not variable or variable based on wind/solar input out of our control.

The economically viable mass storage options (i.e pumped storage) are basically all deployed. Batteries are getting there but they still need some shenanigans in the ancillary market where they get paid for not running for complex reasons to make the economics in most instances. As the shenanigans price out nat gas in those markets it will be interesting to see how offer strategies of nat gas change to recoup the lost economic viability and if that makes batteries less profitable.

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

#138

Post by danbruc »

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?

And why six? Why not build one and then see?

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

#139

Post by theultdev »

ceejayoz wrote: post #128
nickpp wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It is when it comes to nuclear regulation.

The NRC effectively makes nuclear impossible in the US.

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

#140

Post by epups »

ceejayoz wrote: post #128
nickpp wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Finland has modern regulation for nuclear energy, and is constantly improving it (https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfinland-to-reform-nucle...). They see it as a strategic option. I'm not sure this is the same for Idaho.
Post reply on HN