Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

neutronbytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

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

#51

Post by Danox »

kamranjon wrote: post #16

Does anyone understand how Meta is able to spend so much money on AI with basically no AI product to speak of? Especially after sinking billions of dollars into a failed VR product? I just don't really understand why they are investing in data centers, I don't know of any actual product they offer that anyone is seriously considering using in the space.

Because Zuckerberg is the king and has complete control, but Meta is so far behind in this so-called AI model race it will be canceled quietly. It will just be but a footnote in about 2 to 3 years.

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

#52

Post by Danox »

eigenspace wrote: post #20
gopalv wrote: 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.

Sad for Meta it will be obsolete by the time it’s theoreticallyput online which I doubt will ever happen.

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

#53

Post by thinkcontext »

christina97 wrote: post #12
Octoth0rpe wrote: post #11

> A dual Natrium reactor site can provide 690 MW of reliable 24/7 365 power Given that they haven’t actually built one, asserting the performance seems inappropriate, _especially_ the uptime which IIRC is far, far higher than is typical for proven designs, let alone a new one.

Well operated, mature nuclear power plants can easily achieve 90%+ uptime. I don’t think this is a huge issue.

This is a brand new type, there's no way that equivalent operation to a decades old design with centuries of operational experience can be assumed. Presumably its been designed for high uptime but it would not be unusual for new technology like this to require some refinement.

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

#55

Post by chermi »

mpweiher wrote: post #8
pico303 wrote: 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?

That's the permit/approval for the pilot/test, right? There are about a million approvals they need to get through. Are they using the DoE fast tracking method?

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

#56

Post by chermi »

doodlebugging wrote: post #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 fr…

I mean, didn't we give the government and the public long enough to prove they could provide abundant, cheap nuclear? They were so closed in the 60/70s and have since failed miserably and everyone has suffered for it. Cheap, abundant energy is good for humanity. If a private company accelerates it, I'm here for it.

Yes, I'm also for solar, and wind, and geothermal, and nat gas, and way out there fusion. It's hard to exaggerate how much cheap, abundant, reliable energy helps civilization.

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

#57

Post by thinkcontext »

mpweiher wrote: post #8
pico303 wrote: 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?

Is it not possible that they build the first one and things don't go smoothly and they need to make some adjustments for subsequent builds?

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

#58

Post by lyu07282 »

doodlebugging wrote: post #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 fr…

But everything about this is already privatized, from the uranium mining to the nuclear power plant operators to the nuclear waste disposal, to each piece in the nuclear triard manufacturered by military industry, from the private contractors guarding our bombs down to the luxury fallout shelter industry. It's big business. You aren't paranoid, just naive to think Mark Zuckerberg is in any way the problem in particular, think of all the billionaire assholes you have never heard about.

https://www.icanw.org/investing_in_the_arms_race

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

#59

Post by devmor »

bronson wrote: post #37
nine_k wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically the built plant must pass a rigorous inspection before starting operations. But for that the plant needs to be built!

And built well, which has been a source of big delays in the past.

And I’m sure no corners will be cut!

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

#60

Post by devmor »

mpweiher wrote: post #45
lazide wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you give an example of a plant that has been built under this streamlined process and what kind of timeline it had?

The only recent nuclear buildouts that I personally have knowledge of are expansions to existing plants and thus have a lower barrier to get going.

Post reply on HN