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

251–260 of 332 posts

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

#251

Post by peyton »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #184
snapplebobapple wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 economic…

A bit more clarity: right now, and for the rest of this decade just rolling out a lot more renewables will be the cheapest way to replace carbon generating sources which are right now burning and spewing carbon into the atmosphere to generate electricity around the globe. So, there is a long term need, in order to reach a goal of 100% carbon free electricity (generally set for about 2035) for more on-demand resources…

What’s the plan for African nations pursuing industrialization agendas? My understanding is that wind and solar are too low-density for their tribal permitting environments. I don’t see the win in meeting a 2035 target that makes wildly optimistic assumptions about Africa’s trajectory over the next century if it means underinvesting in sources that will move the planet off coal.

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

#252

Post by thesnide »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #238
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?

Because of either ignoring, willfully or otherwise, scaling laws. The relationship between price and size of most plants takes the form of: Price(size) = fixed + K*size^b Where b is almost always less than 1, can go as low as 0.6. So building 6 small reactors will be more expensive than building a single reactor 6 times the size. This is the difference between vertically scaling (bigger thing) vs horizontal scaling (…

yet, microservices are all the rage now.

It makes sense when the monolith is very complex to certify, so having discrete parts that are individually certified is more expensive only in theory when you dont factor in the exponential certification complexity. which i guess is high for nuclear related parts.

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

#253

Post by raphaelj »

fulafel wrote: post #242
_aavaa_ wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of either ignoring, willfully or otherwise, scaling laws. The relationship between price and size of most plants takes the form of: Price(size) = fixed + K*size^b Where b is almost always less than 1, can go as low as 0.6. So building 6 small reactors will be more expensive than building a single reactor 6 times the size. This is the difference between vertically scaling (bigger thing) vs horizontal scaling (…

The EPR seems to disprove this.

Actually quite the opposite. The EPR cost less per GW than what was announced for these.

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

#254

Post by konschubert »

Retric wrote: post #233
pfdietz wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using batteries for seasonal storage is crazy. E-fuels like hydrogen would be much more economical for that storage use case.

It’s not the battery being used for seasonal storage but the difference in rates of battery degradation. Suppose a normal discharge cycle costs 10c/kWh and a very deep discharge costs 100c/kWh to access that last 10%. That means there are energy reserves unacceptably expensive for normal operations, but it also means simply operating batteries efficiently automatically creates reserve capacity which is the entire poi…

Yes, what you're saying works. But only for short term outlier events, not storing power from summer for winter.

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

#255

Post by Kon5ole »

theultdev wrote: post #228
effie wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commercial nuclear should be very hard, almost impossible. This seems to be the correct conclusion after all the accidents and the reasons for them - incompetent, self-serving management pushing dangerous commands on the personnel (Chernobyl,Three Mile Island) or normalizing bad architecture and security plans (Fukushima). Better expensive energy than another major nuclear accident. Nuclear energy can be done safely…

Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy and is developed safely in many countries without the strict overregulation that the US has. Pointing to extreme events with outdated designs has nothing to do with this.

>Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy

By the same logic, maximum security prisons have the safest interns. ;-)

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

#256

Post by Gravityloss »

cinntaile wrote: post #240
Gravityloss wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true, there have been successes.

There haven't been any successes in the west in the last 30-40 years as far as I know, but if you have any recent counter examples I'm all ears.

France and Japan etc. Older than 30 years for sure. But certainly shows that our civilization is capable of it.

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

#257

Post by _aavaa_ »

thesnide wrote: post #252
_aavaa_ wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of either ignoring, willfully or otherwise, scaling laws. The relationship between price and size of most plants takes the form of: Price(size) = fixed + K*size^b Where b is almost always less than 1, can go as low as 0.6. So building 6 small reactors will be more expensive than building a single reactor 6 times the size. This is the difference between vertically scaling (bigger thing) vs horizontal scaling (…

yet, microservices are all the rage now. It makes sense when the monolith is very complex to certify, so having discrete parts that are individually certified is more expensive only in theory when you dont factor in the exponential certification complexity. which i guess is high for nuclear related parts.

Except this doesn’t actually decrease the complexity of each mini reactor. You still have all the same parts in each one, plus you pay a premium for losing scale.

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

#258

Post by nickpp »

effie wrote: post #247
theultdev wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy and is developed safely in many countries without the strict overregulation that the US has. Pointing to extreme events with outdated designs has nothing to do with this.

Extreme events and subsequent changes are why it can be the "safest form of energy". After Chernobyl and Fukushima, regulation did change in those countries as well.

There must be a name for the fallacy when one is focused on avoiding a single risk while completely ignoring much larger and closer dangers.

Nuclear energy has a minuscule list of total casualties throughout history. Casualties per megawatt produced? It's practically zero. At the same time burning hydrocarbons kills every single day through pollution. It kills millions yearly. Burning coal even spews radioactive ash into the air!

And above all, climate change is looming as a civilization-ending danger, closer and closer.

So which one should we regulate more?!

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

#259

Post by Kon5ole »

codersfocus wrote: post #166
bitter_old_man_ wrote: post #123

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 produ…

Why do areas with nuclear power around the world have cheaper than average electricity costs, then?

>Why do areas with nuclear power around the world have cheaper than average electricity costs, then?

Frankly it's because much of the cost of nuclear energy is not labelled "electricity costs" and is instead paid for using general taxes from current and future taxpayers. In the US the defence budget covers some of it for example.

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

#260

Post by nickpp »

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.

Don't you think we should regulate more the energy industries with most deaths per produced megawatt?!
Post reply on HN