Thread

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

151 points · 191 comments · papa-whisky

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. throw0101c · 1790857961 · 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
  There's other factors to consider.
  For example: in some areas there were small/medium coal-fired plants built right by the coal mines, and so have some grid infrastructure already present. You could replace the coal-fired component with an SMR and have a good portion of the rest of the infrastructure as-is (not have to spend effort / political capital on more grid pylons, which many folks oppose).
  Or, for a smaller regional area, having more smaller units allows for more HA since each individual unit can be serviced independently. E.g., in Canadian Maritimes there is a big CANDU, which serves just fine when online, but when it goes offline it needs to be backstopped. Their demands need (say) 'only' 600 MW, and instead of 1x600MW, having 2x3GW allows for more HA. So if one units goes offline for maintenance/inspection the backstop that is needed is much less.
  * <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Lepreau_Nuclear_Generating_Station" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Lepreau_Nuclear_Generati...
  1. roryirvine · 1790868914 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, Rolls Royce are making a similar sales pitch for their slightly larger (470 MWe) SMRs - they can be built on the site of decommissioned 1st gen reactors or paired to directly replace old coal-fired plants.
    There's a chance that it might work out reasonably well, depending on how long they take to build and bring into service in practice. If it can be done quickly enough (RR claim 4 years) then it'd be a useful fillip while the renewable buildout is ongoing and the system is still grid-constrained.
    In the medium term, it's unclear whether it can be competitive with the alternative of just turning those sites over to batteries, but it's probably worth a try as a hedge against some sort of unforeseen problem with scaling out storage.
    throw0101c · 1790887668 · focus · HN ↗
    > If it can be done quickly enough (RR claim 4 years) then it'd be a useful fillip while the renewable buildout is ongoing and the system is still grid-constrained.
    Japan managed to begin a new (BWR/PWR) nuclear reactor build and have it in commercial operation in ~5 years:
    * <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#Japan" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
    They did this every year beginning in 1980 up to 2004. Economies of scale and production efficiencies are applicable to nuclear reactors as much as widgets.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.