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. LgWoodenBadger · 1790786724 · focus · HN ↗

               It is when you can get a 210MW S9G, along with an entire state-of-the-art fast attack submarine for 2.8 billion

               1. throwaway2037 · 1790812337 · focus · HN ↗

                  I thought this was a sarcastic reply, so I checked the facts myself. I was stunned. You are spot on.

                  For those unaware, the submarine is Virginia-class[1] and is powered by a 210MW nuclear reactor called the "S9G"[2]. And yes, as of 2019 prices, each boat cost 2.8B USD. There are 28 of these subs active in the US Navy. This isn't some new, experimental reactor design. The US is pumping these out of their shipyards. Sheesh. 5B+ USD for a measly 300MW reactor... (without the nuclear sub!) looks way too expensive. What am I missing?

                  [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Virginia-class_submarine" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Virginia-class_submarine

                  [2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;S9G_reactor" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;S9G_reactor

                  1. crote · 1790841721 · focus · HN ↗

                     You&#x27;re missing the fact that a submarine tends to be submerged in the ocean, and that it is fueled with highly-enriched uranium.

                     Naval reactors and civil reactors look roughly the same at first glance, but as the folks at Three Mile Island found out the hard way, there are some rather crucial differences.

                     1. throwaway2037 · 1790862924 · focus · HN ↗

                        Weirdly, the &quot;submerged in the ocean&quot; part could be good for SMR to deflect the effects of a tsunami. This part is the most important: &quot;it is fueled with highly-enriched uranium&quot;. Really, it makes me think, if the US military allowed it, what is wrong with a bunch of SMRs built in a low population density area using highly-enriched uranium? (For other readers, normally commerical nuclear reacors use low enrichment uranium: 3% to 5% uranium-235.)
               2. ViewTrick1002 · 1790841133 · focus · HN ↗

                  That is 210 MW thermal. Which would produce about 70 MW electricity.

                  $2.8B for 70 MW is insanely expensive.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.