Most active commenters
  • nicce(5)

←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 20 comments | | HN request time: 1.033s | source | bottom
Show context
reenorap ◴[] No.45225348[source]
We need to drive down the costs of implementing nuclear energy. Most of it are fake costs due to regulation. I understand that regulation is needed but we also need nuclear energy, we have to find a streamlined way to get more plants up and running as soon as possible. I think they should all be government projects so that private companies can't complain that they're losing money and keep have to ratchet up the prices, like PG&E in California. My rates have doubled in a few years to over $0.40/kWh and up over $0.50/kWh after I go up a tier depending on usage.
replies(39): >>45225431 #>>45225480 #>>45225524 #>>45225535 #>>45225565 #>>45225613 #>>45225619 #>>45225755 #>>45225860 #>>45225949 #>>45225961 #>>45226031 #>>45226055 #>>45226067 #>>45226154 #>>45226181 #>>45226458 #>>45226594 #>>45226646 #>>45226658 #>>45226803 #>>45226943 #>>45226958 #>>45227052 #>>45227098 #>>45227206 #>>45227241 #>>45227262 #>>45227391 #>>45227592 #>>45227750 #>>45228008 #>>45228029 #>>45228207 #>>45228266 #>>45228536 #>>45229440 #>>45229710 #>>45229877 #
mixdup ◴[] No.45225860[source]
A major reason nuclear plants are super expensive is because we do it so rarely

Every reactor and every plant is bespoke, even if they are based on a common "design" each instance is different enough that every project has to be managed from the ground up as a new thing, you get certified only on a single plant, operators can't move from plant to plant without recertification, etc

Part of that is because they are so big and massive, and take a long time to build. If we'd build smaller, modular reactors that are literally exactly the same every single time you would begin to get economies of scale, you'd be able to get by without having to build a complete replica for training every time, and by being smaller you'd get to value delivery much quicker reducing the finance costs, which would then let you plow the profits from Reactor A into Reactor B's construction

replies(6): >>45225899 #>>45225976 #>>45226082 #>>45226517 #>>45226671 #>>45227220 #
1. nicce ◴[] No.45225899[source]
It isn't that rare in general - if the U.S. opens the secrets of nuclear submarines - we had had mini reactors for decades.
replies(6): >>45225941 #>>45226068 #>>45226353 #>>45226883 #>>45226912 #>>45227169 #
2. _aavaa_ ◴[] No.45225941[source]
The problem is economics. Just because the Us built a fleet does not mean that they are economical once put in a non-military application.
replies(1): >>45226631 #
3. tick_tock_tick ◴[] No.45226068[source]
I'd be fine with us just having the USA navy operate them we build them for carriers and subs just double or triple the order and plug em into the grid.
4. fmajid ◴[] No.45226353[source]
And the technology is incredibly mature, submarine reactors were some of the first reactors, period.
replies(2): >>45226376 #>>45226406 #
5. quotemstr ◴[] No.45226376[source]
Submarine reactors run on super high enriched fuel instantly one could instantly repurpose into a bomb. Lots of gen 4 and 5 reactor designs that combine low cost, compact footprint, and running on less expensive and carefully controlled fuel.
replies(1): >>45226550 #
6. croes ◴[] No.45226406[source]
And they are heavily guarded.

In the current political climate I prefer energy sources that don’t cause severe damage if sabotaged.

Did you hear the worries in Ukraine that Russia could hit a wind turbine with a rocket?

replies(1): >>45226629 #
7. nicce ◴[] No.45226550{3}[source]
French have some LEU submarines. They seem to be pretty good on paper. Needs refueling every ten years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffren-class_submarine

replies(2): >>45226891 #>>45227143 #
8. rafaelmn ◴[] No.45226629{3}[source]
What's the danger in hitting a micro nuclear reactor with a rocket ? A shitty dirty bomb detonated near the powerplant ?
replies(1): >>45231935 #
9. ◴[] No.45226631[source]
10. mixdup ◴[] No.45226883[source]
The DoD is not exactly known for great efficiency and getting the most value for money
11. quotemstr ◴[] No.45226891{4}[source]
Cool! Thanks
12. nradov ◴[] No.45226912[source]
Secrecy isn't the obstacle here. Naval reactors are optimized for combat performance, costs be damned. They aren't economically efficient for commercial power generation.
replies(1): >>45227863 #
13. pyrale ◴[] No.45227143{4}[source]
France also built full-sized commercial plants rather than batteries of small reactors. That's because scale matters for efficient production.
replies(1): >>45228122 #
14. jasonwatkinspdx ◴[] No.45227169[source]
Total non starter.

Nuclear submarine power plants are not in any way a technology useful for utility scale power generation.

To start with they use fuel enriched to weapons grade.

They aren't cost effective vs the amount of power produced, and the designs don't scale up to utility scale power.

Submarine plants are not some sort of miracle SMR we can just roll out.

The Navy is willing to page cost premiums a utility company cannot, because for the Navy it's about having a necessary capability. There's no economic break even to consider.

replies(2): >>45227336 #>>45228135 #
15. ◴[] No.45227336[source]
16. nicce ◴[] No.45227863[source]
At least Russia is doing fine with SMRs, thought the fuel enrichment level is around 20%. They are building new reactors all the time and they seem pretty efficient. E.g. they have even floating nuclear plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov
17. nicce ◴[] No.45228122{5}[source]
That is rapidly changing.

https://onu-vienne.delegfrance.org/Nuclear-power-and-SMR-are...

https://regulation-oversight.asnr.fr/oversight/small-modular...

18. bobmcnamara ◴[] No.45228135[source]
I thought I'd mention that ship supplied short power has been a thing for ages. USS Daniel Webster even trained for this for new years eve apocalypse nothingburger. And its almost always been used for only powering something critical. Today's subs are <10MW. Nothing for utility scale. I can't imagine the economics are ever good. More of a: we've already got this boat.

https://thenaptimeauthor.wordpress.com/2021/04/09/the-uss-le...

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/11/26/A-nuclear-submarine-...

There are some floating PWRs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_pow...

19. oneshtein ◴[] No.45231935{4}[source]
Nuclear meltdown, evacuation of nearby cities.
replies(1): >>45232063 #
20. nicce ◴[] No.45232063{5}[source]
Don’t you need to create a specific kind of chemical reaction and just bomb is not enough for that?