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

211–220 of 332 posts

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

#211

Post by philipkglass »

p_l wrote: post #203
p_l wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots was dumped into known low-effectiveness light water fission precisely because it is not a viable path for making weapons . There are many more efficient ways of running nuclear power, especially ones that do not involve either needing enrichement of fuel nor throwing away majority of still usable fuel - but despite NPT, they are blocked politically by nuclear-haves.

Can't edit anymore, but for reference for those who probably downvote out of misunderstanding. Light water moderated reactors aren't a pathway to making nuclear weapons, because they require that you have the ability to enrich uranium separately just to start . I.e. a light-water moderated reactor is dependant either on capability to enrich fuel and/or use unenriched fuel (for enrichment or plutonium production) - wh…

It's true that light water reactors are not a good way to make plutonium for weapons. I disagree that designs running on natural uranium fuel (moderated by graphite or heavy water) are more efficient. Even countries that already have nuclear weapons and are beyond non-proliferation fears, like China, Russia, and the UK, don't build new power reactors moderated with heavy water or graphite.

Reactors using unenriched uranium can be more fuel-efficient in terms of electrical output per ton of natural uranium consumed, but they're not more cost-efficient. High project cost is the number one problem that impedes nuclear construction while fuel cost is almost negligible. Keep in mind that Canada's newest CANDU, Darlington 4, started construction in 1986; if you're comparing its costs to a light water reactor then you should also use mid-1980s costs for those and not e.g. the high costs for more recent EPR or AP1000 reactors. Building a new CANDU in Canada today would also cost more than it did in the 1980s.

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

#212

Post by p_l »

philipkglass wrote: post #211
p_l wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't edit anymore, but for reference for those who probably downvote out of misunderstanding. Light water moderated reactors aren't a pathway to making nuclear weapons, because they require that you have the ability to enrich uranium separately just to start . I.e. a light-water moderated reactor is dependant either on capability to enrich fuel and/or use unenriched fuel (for enrichment or plutonium production) - wh…

It's true that light water reactors are not a good way to make plutonium for weapons. I disagree that designs running on natural uranium fuel (moderated by graphite or heavy water) are more efficient. Even countries that already have nuclear weapons and are beyond non-proliferation fears, like China, Russia, and the UK, don't build new power reactors moderated with heavy water or graphite. Reactors using unenriched u…

My point was more specifically about push to use only light water moderated reactors, and yes for various reasons those were generally done even among nuclear armed states (because you want to keep certain things close and because an LWR can be sold elsewhere).

However I'd argue that in terms of total lifespan costs the increased waste production of LWRs is considerable portion of perceived costs - essentially the long-term storage fears vs burn down in fast reactors etc. Plus the focus on LWRs ensured that research in more capable designs was stiffled.

Do not take this "rah rah nuclear best renewables suck" though. Though I'd be very interested in how costs would go if we taxed/penalized emissions do the max - essentially, I consider every new fossil fuel plant, including gas backup for renewables, to be a policy failure. My personal dream is overprovisioning with nuclear and renewables and instead of curtailment try to funnel extra power into other, previously uneconomical things (replacement of coal in smelting with actual green hydrogen, stuff like that)

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

#213

Post by philipkglass »

p_l wrote: post #212
philipkglass wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that light water reactors are not a good way to make plutonium for weapons. I disagree that designs running on natural uranium fuel (moderated by graphite or heavy water) are more efficient. Even countries that already have nuclear weapons and are beyond non-proliferation fears, like China, Russia, and the UK, don't build new power reactors moderated with heavy water or graphite. Reactors using unenriched u…

My point was more specifically about push to use only light water moderated reactors, and yes for various reasons those were generally done even among nuclear armed states (because you want to keep certain things close and because an LWR can be sold elsewhere). However I'd argue that in terms of total lifespan costs the increased waste production of LWRs is considerable portion of perceived costs - essentially the lo…

Fast reactors can theoretically reduce the amount of waste that needs to go to long term disposal, but those are even rarer than graphite or heavy water moderated reactors. They're also even more expensive. I believe that there are currently only two fast power reactors in operation, both Russian (BN-600 and BN-800).

I agree with you that it would have been (still would be) better to have emissions taxes penalizing pollution from fossil fuels instead of technology-specific incentives and subsidies for the various kinds of fossil alternatives. I live near a nuclear power plant and I have no problem with its track record of safety or emissions. I do think nuclear power has a major cost and scheduling problem for new projects and I'm not sure how that can be overcome. SMR projects like this one that Utah just canceled were the latest great hope for taming those issues.

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

#214

Post by simbolit »

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.

A nuclear power plant is the literal last thing I would want looser regulation on.

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

#215

Post by KptMarchewa »

fulafel wrote: post #155
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 additional data, a just announced start in Poland [1] is planned for $40B for 6 AP1000 reactors (6000 GW? maybe more), which sclaed down by 10x would make $4B for 600+ MW. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/poland-ap-polish-mateusz-...

Second power plant is going to be Korean APR1400, so even better price/performance.

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

#216

Post by pie_flavor »

smt88 wrote: post #209
lamontcg wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it that we've become so bad at building? MBAs. Same ones infecting the company that you most likely work for. Something smaller like stamping out PV panels or windmills for farms of them is much more manageable. Anything big and complex invites too much graft. And while you can complain about expensive regulations, that's just another graft called regulatory capture. And they let you blame it on the hippies,…

As a software developer, I can tell you that MBAs aren't necessary for massive cost overruns. People are bad as estimating the cost of technical work when unknown-unknowns are involved, and the problem becomes worse when there's a massive incentive to underestimate to win the contract when you know the government will pay for all of your overruns.

Those describe the discrepancy between an incorrectly low bid and a reasonable-but-higher cost. They do not describe how the cost gets astronomically high.

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

#217

Post by ProjectArcturis »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #179
xenon7 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be wrong to assume that we're dealing with an Apollo-style issue here (we "no longer have the technology to do it efficiently")? I'm certainly not an expert on nuclear power, but it is a little odd how the average nuclear reactor in the US is 42 years old [1]. [1]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-indus...

It's just the U.S. China, France, and Japan have all successfully built nuclear at scale. I won't be surprised if developing nations in Africa start lapping the U.S. on nuclear power in the next few decades. They certainly have enough Uranium to do so.

Why would they take enormous risks on execution -- huge cost overruns and delays are par for the course with nuclear -- when solar + battery is so much cheaper and quicker?

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

#218

Post by Tade0 »

fulafel wrote: post #155
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 additional data, a just announced start in Poland [1] is planned for $40B for 6 AP1000 reactors (6000 GW? maybe more), which sclaed down by 10x would make $4B for 600+ MW. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/poland-ap-polish-mateusz-...

That was before the elections. The most recent news about it that I read said that they're reconsidering the location, which is going to introduce more delay and costs (even though it's justified, considering how the current location was chosen).

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

#219

Post by fomine3 »

kagakuninja wrote: post #23
vlovich123 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s important to remember that research and commercial funding for nuclear reactors has basically frozen for the better part of 60 years, which means that fission tech hasn’t been following Wright’s law and we’re still stuck with designs from 60 years ago. Things have heated up a bit more recently but this stuff has a long lead time (+ think of all the people who didn’t go into nuclear because of the lack of funding…

All the major world powers dumped tons of money into researching light water fission, precisely because it is dual use technology for making weapons. What has not had billions of government dollars in finding were renewables.

Renewables R&D has been also subsidized

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

#220

Post by patmorgan23 »

simbolit wrote: post #214
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.

A nuclear power plant is the literal last thing I would want looser regulation on.

I understand the sentiment, but more does not equal better.

I think we over regulate nuclear plants/nuclear plant construction/design in the United States. We should absolutely have robust regulatory controls and review in place, but those controls need to serve a purpose and reduce a specific risk(s). Controls for controls sake just add to cost and possibly sub-optimal operations.

Case in point, across the US many coal fire power stations are being decommissioned, on the face these would be great candidates to convert to Nuclear power stations. They already have a lot of the expensive infrastructure in place on site (i.e. massive transmission lines, electric substation, probably a reliable water source, etc). Great opportunity to reduce cost and accelerate a project.

But because of the way the nuclear regulations are structured, and the fact that coal ash is radioactive it's unlikely a site like this would be to become compliant.

We should have tough regulations on the nuclear industry, but they should be smart regulations.

Post reply on HN