Thread

1. preisschild · 1790751984 · focus · HN ↗

   The BWRX-300 footprint is so large they might as well just build large nuclear power units again and get 3-4x the power

   1. nine_k · 1790754444 · focus · HN ↗

      I don't think that the footprint is the key factor. Likely the total construction cost is. A large reactor may have a better cost per kWh, averaged over decades of its lifetime, but a smaller reactor likely has a more affordable upfront cost.

      1. jillesvangurp · 1790762848 · focus · HN ↗

         The key point with small modular reactors vs. reactors like this is that construction happens in factories rather than on site. Theoretically, you might get some economies of scale from series production in a factory that is much harder to get doing bespoke construction projects. Which is why historically, nuclear projects tend to blow through their cost estimates and why having larger reactors makes that a bit more tolerable. Of course until somebody actually does this and scales to hundreds/thousands of reactors production, this is all theoretical.

         This particular reactor is already estimated at over 5 billion $ I think. That's a lot of money for just 300MW and it probably could end up being a wildly optimistic estimate as well. I think effectively much of the construction is still on site and not in a factory. Hence the need for a construction permit. So, you get all of the downsides of complex on site construction such as including high cost, permitting overhead, lots of bureaucracy, associated delays & uncertainty, etc. without the upside of actually delivering a lot of power like you would with a larger reaction. Calling it "modular" might be overstating things a bit.

         Probably cheaper, faster, and easier to just plonk down 5GW of solar, wind, or battery (or combinations of those). Especially if you calculate in the 200-300% time and dollar budget that many nuclear projects seem to end up having. Maybe this one will be different. A lot of people have a lot riding on Nuclear projects breaking this trend. But then that has been the case for decades.

         1. coldpie · 1790775019 · focus · HN ↗

            Five billion is just not all that much money. One guy spent eight times that to change the moderation policies of one social media website. Microsoft spent 14 times that to buy a video game company that they've largely mismanaged. Those two purchases alone could've paid for 20 of these reactors, maybe more if economies of scale kick in. Don't even ask how much Facebook is flushing down the toilet on VR or how much we're spending every single day in Iran. We could choose to spend our money on things like clean energy, but we choose other things instead.

            1. pfdietz · 1790776795 · focus · HN ↗

               It is for 300MW.

               1. coldpie · 1790779711 · focus · HN ↗

                  Trying to minmax for the most cost effective renewable energy is fretting over spending nickles and dimes, while billionaires and megacorps are setting hundred dollar bills on fire. It's just not a productive place to be focusing your energy. We can afford both types of renewable energy, easily, we're just choosing to let others waste that money on garbage instead.

                  1. IncreasePosts · 1790780237 · focus · HN ↗

                     It's not nickles and dimes. It's 5x more expensive than a conservative estimate on 700mw of wind or solar

                     1. coldpie · 1790780431 · focus · HN ↗

                        > It's not nickles and dimes

                        Yes it is. So far, we've flushed enough money down the Iran war toilet to pay for ten of these, and there's no end in sight.

                        1. pfdietz · 1790781418 · focus · HN ↗

                           I call this the "bigger rat" argument.

                           The rat, having been caught by the rat catcher, complains there are other, bigger rats. But he's still a rat.

                           The uneconomical project, having been called out, complains there are other, even more expensive activities. But that doesn't change that the project is too expensive.

                           1. coldpie · 1790782447 · focus · HN ↗

                              Nah. Groups of people spending hours and hours debating whether it is smarter to buy the $1.95 or the $1.99 can of beans at the store is being silly. Just pick one. Or buy both! It's only two bucks and we spent $2,000 on flights to Europe last week.

                              1. pfdietz · 1790782559 · focus · HN ↗

                                 What an absurd analogy. Of course it's worth spending time when deciding if billions of dollars are worth spending on something. It's worth entire individual lifetimes of effort if one can save that much money.

                                 1. coldpie · 1790782769 · focus · HN ↗

                                    I identified ways to save 30 times that much money in this thread. It is more productive for you to focus your efforts there.

                                    1. pfdietz · 1790782896 · focus · HN ↗

                                       So, it's not going to cost $5B? Better inform those building it.

                                       1. coldpie · 1790783372 · focus · HN ↗

                                          I just think it's silly to focus your efforts complaining about $5B being arguably somewhat inefficiently spent, versus hundreds of billions of dollars going straight into the garbage. There's far better things to focus on if you're concerned about money going to waste.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.