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. mixdup · 1790780609 · focus · HN ↗

                  I mean it is, there is a project in Georgia for a new 1.4GW natural gas plant that has a $3.3 billion budget

                  But, the $5 billion here isn't purely an investment in 300 MW of capacity, it's an investment in starting up the nuclear reactor factory that can start churning these things out at $1-2 billion or whatever their goal may be

                  Also, have to take into consideration the overall operating costs. Nuclear costs significantly more up front but over time costs much less to operate (and is much more predictable) because you don't have to buy and burn natural gas forever

                  1. dalyons · 1790785597 · focus · HN ↗

                     all cost modeling for nuclear takes this into account into the $/mwh of power. Fuel is cheap, but you have to pay back the enormous construction capex over time through power sales. Plus, staffing, security, insurance and maintaince are massive ongoing costs. Nukes remain the most expensive way to generate power.

                     The only cheap nuclear watts come from facilities built a long time ago in a completely different cost environment, and had construction and insurance subsidized by the state.

                     1. mixdup · 1790792729 · focus · HN ↗

                        Natural gas plants all have security, insurance, maintenance, and staffing. Of course there are different levels of those but those costs are not unique to nuclear plants

                        1. pfdietz · 1790796727 · focus · HN ↗

                           Large natural gas plants have about 0.05 employees per MW. Nuclear plants have 0.5 to 1.0 employees per MW.

                           1. mixdup · 1790797754 · focus · HN ↗

                              imagine how that number can be decreased as the plants are smaller, standardized, and more numerous. you can likely get a lot more efficiency out of the workforce when an engineer or operator can work across a dozen of these in a 200 mile radius instead of just one in the whole country. plus you need fewer training staff etc

                              1. pfdietz · 1790798562 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Making plants smaller increases the number of employees per MW. Standardized might reduce the cost of construction, but how would it reduce the number of employees needed?

                                 1. mixdup · 1790822398 · focus · HN ↗

                                    >but how would it reduce the number of employees needed?

                                    A standardized reactor design that doesn't need a bespoke training control room at every single site means fewer training staff. It means the same maintenance workers and compliance workers and everyone else can be utilized more because they can cover more facilities instead of just the single site they are certified on and work at

                              2. dalyons · 1790798695 · focus · HN ↗

                                 or, you put a bunch of these small plants in one physical location and you get even more efficiency out of the workforce - only one facilties management crew, only one security team. And you'd even save money on just having one grid connection. Oh wait...
                  2. pfdietz · 1790785635 · focus · HN ↗

                     Those projected future savings are to be greeted with considerable skepticism. They are not locked in by contracts. They are the kinds of projections we've seen all too often fall apart in nuclear.

                     The underlying mechanic here is that cost projections are being used to sell a technology. As such, there is very strong incentive to underestimate the costs. This applies to FOAK plants and to projected experience rates.

                     1. SECProto · 1790787470 · focus · HN ↗

                        The one thing that low carbon grids around the world share is high portion of nuclear (or hydro, which you can't build unless it naturally exists). Therefore, the only thing a SMR cost should be compared to is other nuclear reactors. Natural Gas may be cheaper (startup cost), may be more expensive (ongoing fuel), or will definitely be more expensive (carbon in the atmosphere doesn't go away), but regardless there is no reason to compare nuclear to natgas.

                        1. pfdietz · 1790788673 · focus · HN ↗

                           > The one thing that low carbon grids around the world share is high portion of nuclear (or hydro, which you can't build unless it naturally exists).

                           This is an historical artifact. When that generating capacity was built, nuclear was the alternative to fossil fuels. It isn't today; renewables are now cheaper and faster to install.

                           Your argument can be seen as a way to ignore the cost decline of renewables without at first glance doing so.

                           (As you say, there are hydro-dominated grids with no nuclear, for example Costa Rica, which gets 98% of its electrical energy from renewables.)

                           1. SECProto · 1790790334 · focus · HN ↗

                              I was responding to the thread, which is comparing nuclear to natural gas.

                              Comparing to renewables is a different story - it can be done but it's much more complex (not dispatchable, seasonally variable) but certainly renewables makes sense in some or many places, (and in all places for a portion of the supply). I'm all in favour as long as it is actually done with the intent of getting to zero CO2, and doesn't just stall when it gets to the more difficult part of the transition. So many places get to 50% annual generation as renewable and throw up their hands about the remainder and leave it on coal/oil/natural gas

                              1. pfdietz · 1790796645 · focus · HN ↗

                                 > I was responding to the thread, which is comparing nuclear to natural gas.

                                 It's comparing nuclear to alternatives, one of which is natural gas. Others are renewables. One cannot make or justify a decision on nuclear without considering all the alternatives.

                                 1. leonidasrup · 1790864287 · focus · HN ↗

                                    Weather dependent renewables (wind, solar) are not an alternative to nuclear, even when they are perceived in this way by the public.

                                    From point of view of an electrical grid operator only wind/solar+fossil are alternative to nuclear, if you want to maintain stable electric grid without blackout or rolling blackouts.

                                    <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rolling_blackout" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rolling_blackout

                                    1. pfdietz · 1790893003 · focus · HN ↗

                                       &gt; Weather dependent renewables (wind, solar) are not an alternative to nuclear, even when they are perceived in this way by the public.

                                       This is a common misconception. The reality is that coupled with storage in a cost-optimized way renewables are no more expensive than nuclear for providing 365&#x2F;24&#x2F;7 power and likely considerably cheaper.

                                       <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;model.energy&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;model.energy&#x2F;

                                       1. leonidasrup · 1790921851 · focus · HN ↗

                                          &gt; This is a common misconception.

                                          I should have clarified it more precisely:

                                          Weather dependent renewables (wind, solar) without storage are not an alternative to nuclear.

                                          Now we can discuss more precisely the kinds of storage: pumped hydro, battery storage, H2 storage, thermal energy storage, the costs and space and material needs of each kind of storage.

                                          &gt; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;model.energy&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;model.energy&#x2F;

                                          This energy model is not 100% renewables, Combined cycle gas turbine with CO2 capture is also included in the mix.

                                          1. pfdietz · 1790942080 · focus · HN ↗

                                             There are basically two kinds of storage needed: a sort term, high efficiency storage, and a longer term low-capex storage. For example, batteries for the former, and either e-fuels like hydrogen or low capex thermal for the latter.

                                             This optimizes cost because different properties of the storage drive cost in the two cases. For the first, there are thousands of charge-discharge cycles, so high round trip efficiency pays off. For the second, there are many fewer such cycles, so efficiency has a much lower payoff; instead the name of the game is minimizing capex.

                                             In practice the second will not be installed until later in decarbonization, especially if the storage is being used to counter rare dark-calm periods when neither wind nor solar are available for a prolonged period. But it can be done, and so little of the total energy flow would go through in that case that high per-kWh costs for that small fraction can be tolerated.

                                             Anyway, your clarification destroys the argument that was being made that nuclear is needed.

                                             1. leonidasrup · 1791029913 · focus · HN ↗

                                                The original argument was that renewables are alternative to nuclear:

                                                &gt; It&#x27;s comparing nuclear to alternatives, one of which is natural gas. Others are renewables. One cannot make or justify a decision on nuclear without considering all the alternatives.

                                                Renewables (solar, wind) alone are not alternative to nuclear, without energy storage. This additional energy storage can be: short term energy storage, long term energy storage, or fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are solar energy stored in ancient times.

                                                China is currently building many new coal plants as an backup for solar and wind power plants.

                                                Germany is building new gas power plants, in future possible running on H2.

                                                <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;themunicheye.com&#x2F;germany-approves-new-gas-power-plants-34453" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;themunicheye.com&#x2F;germany-approves-new-gas-power-plan...

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.