←back to thread

UK's first small nuclear power station to be built in north Wales

(www.bbc.co.uk)
14 points noir_lord | 3 comments | 13 Nov 25 11:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
pjc50 ◴[13 Nov 25 12:54 UTC] No.45914338[source]▶
The chart has Hinkley Point as "being defuelled", while Hinkley Point C is still under construction.

To me, that's the real test of nuclear power: can it actually be switched on, on time, and on budget? Too many projects fail that.

At least building at the Wylfa site avoids the need for grid upgrades.

replies(2): >>45914471 #>>45914790 #
graemep ◴[13 Nov 25 13:07 UTC] No.45914471[source]▶
Small reactors are probably less likely to be delivered on time and on budget and work as expected than big ones.

Generally small projects work better than big ones, not just for nuclear power. Everything from IT systems to railways (the latter being particularly a sore point here in NE England)

replies(1): >>45914803 #
1. happymellon ◴[13 Nov 25 13:42 UTC] No.45914803[source]▶
> Small reactors are probably less likely to be delivered on time

Do you mean the small reactors are more likely to be on time? I ask because you follow up with this and I'm not sure your position.

> Generally small projects work better than big ones

replies(1): >>45916464 #
2. graemep ◴[13 Nov 25 15:58 UTC] No.45916464[source]▶
Yes, it was as stupid typo. They are more likely to be delivered on time and work as expected.
replies(1): >>45918068 #
3. Arnt ◴[13 Nov 25 17:52 UTC] No.45918068[source]▶
Someone posted a paper to HN that investigated the reasons for overruns quite thoroughly, from when the first reactors were built. Fifty pages or so. As I recall, none of the major reasons were related to reactor size.

There were issues such as having ignored the risk of an earthquake; when it became clear that earthquakes can damage reactors, the reactors that were being built needed late engineering changes that led to cost overruns. Things like that. But nothing related to reactor size.

(Note that this was about cost overruns. Not about the costs that stayed at the projected level.)