Thread

NRC issues first U.S. construction permit for a BWRX-300 small modular reactor

151 points · 191 comments · papa-whisky

testing22321 · 1790741363 · focus · HN ↗
Place your bets now.
Time until first power generated, and actual final total cost.
I’ll go 15 years and $10 Billion.
1. mpweiher · 1790753387 · focus · HN ↗
  How certain are you of your prediction? What odds would you give me if I bet against you?
  10:1?
  100:1?
  Background:
  The BWRX predecessor, the ABWR, holds the record for the fastest construction time of a commercial nuclear power plant ever: just slightly over 3 years to first criticality, 4 years total to commercial operation.
  Fun fact: it was the success of this first Gen III reactor that caused EDF to predict the EPRs would also only take 3 years to build. Which proved...optimistic. For the EPR. But proven for the ABWR.
  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_boiling_water_reactor" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_boiling_water_reactor
  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Pow...
  <a href="https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-time" rel="nofollow">https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/nuclear-construction-ti...
  The BWRX is also passively safe: cooling occurs via natural circulation, no pumps needed.
  So if it takes 15 years I give you $100, if it takes less you give me $10000?
  Deal?
  1. guywithahat · 1790779535 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure but the ABWR was built in Japan, and the largest impediment to safe and profitable nuclear reactors is regulatory. The Trump admin have made substantial efforts to simplify the process to approve nuclear reactors however we have yet to see whether that's enough, or whether they'll be able to hit their 12-18 month licensing approval goals.
    mmooss · 1790785482 · focus · HN ↗
    > the largest impediment to safe and profitable nuclear reactors is regulatory
    I don't know any evidence of that. My understanding is that it's a highly complex technology, many components unavoidably take a long time to construct, and it may be fundamentally uneconomic.
    Has anyone, anywhere in the world profitably (subtracting subsidies) constructed one?
    mpweiher · 1790786577 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes. Most nuclear power plants are (highly) profitable and not subsidized.
    ViewTrick1002 · 1790841425 · focus · HN ↗
    Given that the nuclear industry would shut down overnight if having to pay its own insurance costs it’s quite hard to take you seriously when you say it’s not subsidized.
    mpweiher · 1790844187 · focus · HN ↗
    That turns out not to be the case.
    ViewTrick1002 · 1790850050 · focus · HN ↗
    The Price-Anderson act and equivalents around the world tells a different story.
    In Sweden in 2022 the right wing coalition which won promised new nuclear would appear if only it was allowed. Quickly they abandoned large scale nuclear in favor of SMR, PowerPoints reactors are always cheap.
    Four years later, we are at:
    - The state takes essentially all financial risk, even borrowing the money because Vattenfall refuses to put it on its own balance sheet.
    - The state provides a huge direct taxpayer handout.
    - The state takes the construction risk. Cost overruns means taxpayers put in more.
    - The state subsidizes the entire final waste repository.
    - The state subsidizes roughly the entire accident liability.
    - The state guarantees the electricity price for 40 years.
    That rather proves the point about what happens when new nuclear meets actual financing conditions.
    And right wing coaltion just lost the latest election two weeks ago. Seems like we didn't get any new nuclear after all.
    mpweiher · 1790851017 · focus · HN ↗
    That also is almost entirely untrue and has virtually nothing to do with your original claim.
    ViewTrick1002 · 1790851398 · focus · HN ↗
    Which bullet is false? Be specific.
    mpweiher · 1790886638 · focus · HN ↗
    I am not going to participate in your Gish Gallop.
    If you answer on point to the point, we can have a discussion.
    Otherwise: gish along...
    ViewTrick1002 · 1790890628 · focus · HN ↗
    I’ll take that as confirmation that you can’t identify a single false claim.
    Which is unsurprising, since all six are based on publicly available information.
    mpweiher · 1790923163 · focus · HN ↗
    That would an incorrect conclusion.
    As I wrote before: your "claims" are largely just your opinions, some misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the relevant information, but most importantly they are irrelevant.
    And I won't engage in your Gish gallop.
    Of course, you could have understood that the first time I wrote it.
    But feel free to further demonstrate your lack of understanding.
    Your call. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.