Live data from Hacker News

TerraPower in deal with Meta for eight Natrium 345 MW nuclear plants

neutronbytes.com

41–50 of 108 posts

Re: TerraPower in deal with Meta for eight Natrium 345 MW nuclear plants

#41

> The eight 345 MW advanced sodium cooled reactors would provide Meta with up to 2.8 GW of carbon-free, baseload energy. Each reactor comes with the Natrium technology’s innovative built-in energy storage system providing the capacity to boost total output to 4 GW of power. For energy storage, is it storing the hot water, or using batteries to store generated electricity?

Sodium cooled. They will store heat in a big thermos of molten salt.

Re: TerraPower in deal with Meta for eight Natrium 345 MW nuclear plants

#42

> The eight 345 MW advanced sodium cooled reactors would provide Meta with up to 2.8 GW of carbon-free, baseload energy. Each reactor comes with the Natrium technology’s innovative built-in energy storage system providing the capacity to boost total output to 4 GW of power. For energy storage, is it storing the hot water, or using batteries to store generated electricity?

Sodium cooled. They will store heat in a big thermos of molten salt.

Hence, natrium.

Re: TerraPower in deal with Meta for eight Natrium 345 MW nuclear plants

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is 90% equal to 24x7, 365?

Yes. The refueling takes the most time but that is planned years in advance. A one-year planned outage every decade can still be 24/7/365 in the other nine years.

Natrium is expected to spend around 1 month refueling every 24 months.

Re: TerraPower in deal with Meta for eight Natrium 345 MW nuclear plants

#44
I think it is a bad idea to allow Meta to participate in nuclear reactor operations. Nuclear reactors and other power infrastructure should be utility-owned and managed under clear regulations designed to eliminate the possibility of control by outside interests who might, or would, be tempted to unload byproducts suitable for production of weapons to anyone who had the money to buy them. They should be prohibited from spinning off any part of their operations into weapons development and prohibited from investing in any entity that is involved in weapons production.

I like the idea of a network of thorium reactors. I don't want to see any part of that network owned or controlled by people that we already know place their own selfish interests above everything else.

Therefore I guess I am suggesting that high net worth individuals should be prohibited from all investments in or operations involving weapons production.

Maybe I just don't trust that guy and think that he would gladly offload the responsibility of waste disposal or processing on anyone in a backroom deal that we don't learn about until he has been providing materials to refine and construct weapons to individuals who will gladly employ them in attacks.

I'm not paranoid, I just hate assholes.

Re: TerraPower in deal with Meta for eight Natrium 345 MW nuclear plants

#45
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that doesn't sound like very big hurdles. It is an inspection of a completed reactor to make sure it wasn't managed and built like trash. Every factory and business and powerplant is subject to an inspection before it can operate. Even most residentual homes require an inspection before people can live in it.

It is what typically all reactors get stuck on for years - or often decades.

I doubt it.

There used to be separate construction and operating permits, and sometimes you got the building permit, built the plant and then never got the operating license.

This has now been streamlined with a combined construction/operating license. If you built what you promised to build, you get to operate it.

Re: TerraPower in deal with Meta for eight Natrium 345 MW nuclear plants

#46
post #3

The name makes me think it is a molten salt reactor, but it uses liquid sodium. Still aptly named. I was hoping the Thorium molten salt ones with atmospheric pressure vessels would pick up pace thanks to this boom in power demand or Helion would arrive on the scene right on time for this.

It is a molten salt reactor, just not a molten salt thorium reactor.

Sodium (without chlorine or similar) is a metal, not a salt.

They plan to use molten salt for energy storage, but the reactor itself is liquid metal cooled.

Re: TerraPower in deal with Meta for eight Natrium 345 MW nuclear plants

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is 90% equal to 24x7, 365?

Yes. The refueling takes the most time but that is planned years in advance. A one-year planned outage every decade can still be 24/7/365 in the other nine years.

Ah yes, the ol' GitHub method of reporting. "When we're up, we have lots of nines!"

Re: TerraPower in deal with Meta for eight Natrium 345 MW nuclear plants

#48
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The refueling takes the most time but that is planned years in advance. A one-year planned outage every decade can still be 24/7/365 in the other nine years.

Natrium is expected to spend around 1 month refueling every 24 months.

So that is say 5% downtime. Add in time for upgrades and refurbishments, and refueling periods alone are bang on the 10% downtime number.

Re: TerraPower in deal with Meta for eight Natrium 345 MW nuclear plants

#49
post #8
post #7

Their first demonstration reactor is scheduled to go online in 2031. But they’re going to build 8 production reactors, with all the regulatory hurdles, in any reasonable length of time? Right. The headline should probably be, “Meta invests in nuclear startup” and leave it there. My guess is this deal is quietly swept under the rug when the first reactor fails to go fully online by 2032.

While Wyoming is a demonstration plant, it is a demonstration plant of exactly the reactor they plan to build in series. And they have received NRC approval. https://thebreakthrough.org/press/release-the-nrc-issues-con... So not sure what additional regulatory hurdles you see. Can you enlighten us?

It will be quietly canceled in about two years….

Re: TerraPower in deal with Meta for eight Natrium 345 MW nuclear plants

#50
post #25

yes, and hopefully all of them will be set up in his garden and his children kindergarten. Because why somebody else should bear the risk of a nuclear disaster. This is nonsense. State/society is the last backstop, the last resort insurer in nuclear risk. Why shall we insure nuclear risks so Mark gets richer with more clicks ? again socializing the costs and privatizing de profits. Not in my backyard.

Maybe you're right. Maybe we should just continue to burn coal and let people die of black lung mining it and millions of people living in the pollution zone. Safe, clean energy is overrated.
Post reply on HN