5 ms·
The Interchange did a great episode about Nuclear Power a while back [1]. They mentioned a few problems everyone knows about nuclear (NIMBY, financing, licensi
by lchengify 8y ago
The Interchange did a great episode about Nuclear Power a while back [1].
They mentioned a few problems everyone knows about nuclear (NIMBY, financing, licensing, etc), but one of the unintuitive problems was the lack of institutional memory for construction. Westinghouse et.al. will design the core of the plant, but each plant is constructed by a series of contractors and subcontractors who many times, have never constructed anything this precise before. Jessica Lovering compared it to constructing cathedrals (in that each one was bespoke). This makes each one effectively as expensive as the last.
This is one of the many problems companies like TerraPower are trying to solve: Not just dropping up front cost (finance) or making it more stable (NIMBY), but also trying to build a living knowledge of how to build reactors repeatably.
Total tangent: My pet theory is that if it gets really bad, we'll just start building floating nuclear reactors and park them within transmission distance from cities. Ironically we have a ton of experience with floating nuclear reactors from maintaining a large nuclear-powered navy.
[1] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/can-we-make-nuclear-power-great-again#gs.2th7GMg https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/can-we-make-nuc...
- agumonkey 8y agoGreat point. Maybe time for a large dedicated body to cut costs and improve quality.
- lchengify 8y agoYep, the report the podcast mentions (from the breakthrough institute) compares how similar industries (like pharma and spaceflight) manage regulation while still fostering innovation [1]. A lot of the differences are around nuanced things like having clear checkpoints for regulation and points of contact from the regulating bodies. [1] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/struggling-nuclear-industry-breakthrough-institute-trump#gs.FcVu1WI https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/struggling-nucl...
- acidburnNSA 8y agoThe construction knowledge struggle is real. There are people overseas, particularly in some S. Korean and (yes) Japanese construction managers. The Gen-II LWRs they were building on time and on budget would be perfectly sufficient to stave off global warming. We could as a world decide to have those guys swoop in and re-teach us how it's done if we really decided to. Of course, the whole supply chain has to be ramped up, which is pretty non-trivial. Hey, it looks like TerraPower at least has some people who share your pet theory [1]. [1] https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789813148994_0047# https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/978981314899...
- lchengify 8y agoNice! Always happy when my crazy theories are backed up by engineers actually working the problem :). Honestly, I think for the LWRs in the US, it's more of a financing and risk problem than anything. As I understand it, the two South Carolina LWRs failed mainly because the fracking boom created a glut in natural gas prices. Now no one is willing to make any bets on energy prices 20-years out [2]. Note that I'm not sure if these were Gen-II. At least from a cost standpoint, building LWRs the way we used to is akin to Space Shuttle launches: Awesome idea 30 years ago, but they match the finance risk profiles of energy markets today. Re: construction. Funny enough, there's actually a industry-wide skilled construction squeeze in the US right now [1]. After the '07 crash the number of new workers going into construction dropped precipitously. Now when we need skilled project managers there isn't enough to fill demand. [1] https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2018-06-15/the-us-construction-industry-is-booming-but-where-are-the-builders https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2018-06-15/t... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-project-canceled-in-south-carolina.html?_r=1 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-pro...
- jacobush 8y agoSpace Shuttle launches, looked like an awesome idea 30 years ago but was really stupid already back then...
- sambull 8y ago
- sandworm101 8y agoNaval reactors are very different. They dont, most of them, generate electricity. Thier steam pushes propellers. And they are also self-contained within ships. Getting the power from the reactor to shore is a huge task, the bigger task imho. Naval reactors are also smaller and not as efficient than a civilian reactors. They are biult for different priorities (low manning, variable power, long operation at very low power, decades between refits etc). And they have a failsafe not applicable to a civi reactor near a city: evacuate and sink it to the bottom.
- 2muchcoffeeman 8y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine Says that the reactor also powers other systems. And sometimes the motor is electric. Makes sense. Why would you build a nuclear reactor and then only use the steam to power the motor?
- sandworm101 8y agoTiny generator compared to overall reactor power. Standard diesel engines also produce far more motive power than electrical capacity.
- pavpanchekha 8y agoNo comment on the other points but the reactors in the new Ford-class carriers generate electricity, not steam, which is part of the reason those carriers use electric catapult.
- topkai22 8y agoFord’s propulsion is still steam but it generates a tremendous amount of electrical power for its other systems I believe France’s boomers and the next gen SSBN the US is designing both have electric drive. Isn’t this a bit of a “if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball” question though? Electricity generation and direct steam propulsion both drive turbines, the principal of shipboard operation is well proven. The bigger issue in my mind is that the nuclear powered ships spend a tremendous amount of time in port ( at least compared to the downtime of a land based power station) and then often just sail around bad weather rather than get hammered by it.
- atlasunshrugged 8y agoI think Russia just launched a floating 70 megawatt nuclear power plant quite recently https://gizmodo.com/russias-floating-nuclear-power-plant-has-hit-the-sea-1825650002 https://gizmodo.com/russias-floating-nuclear-power-plant-has...
- petre 8y agoIt's more like what a diesel generator is to a power plant, but it's mobile (has to be towed but transportation is quite cheap). It should get the job done. Sadly only the BRICs (mostly Russia) have small modular reactors in operation or under construction, the rest of them range from conceptual designs to licensing stage. Of those, I liked NuScale's design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
- lispm 8y agoI would not want to live near any russian nuclear reactor. Russia's handling of these is extremely poor. Just look at the fate of their nuclear-powered submarines. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/27/russias-navy-more-rust-than-ready/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/27/russias-nav...
- lowry 8y agoAre you hinting at Kursk? It did not even leak for the year it was laying on seabed.
- lispm 8y agoExample: Germany paid more than 550 million Euro and provided expertise&people to help securing rotting nuclear reactors from Russian submarines: https://de.rbth.com/wissen-und-technik/79917-russische-atom-u-boote-murmansk https://de.rbth.com/wissen-und-technik/79917-russische-atom-... If Germany invested that amount of money into Russia, you can bet that it was urgent. Hopefully Russia has shown more care dealing with their Nuclear power plants... https://www.dw.com/de/russland-entsorgung-von-atom-u-booten-beginnt/a-2105430 https://www.dw.com/de/russland-entsorgung-von-atom-u-booten-... http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/lager-fuer-alte-atom-u-boote-deutsche-hilfe-fuer-russlands-strahlendes-erbe-12627451.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_0 http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/lager-fuer-alte-atom-u-bo... All in all the West (!!!) provided many more billions for the safety of those approximately 120-180 (!) nuclear-powered submarines. https://www.zeit.de/2013/07/Russisches-Polarmeer-Atom-U-Boote/komplettansicht https://www.zeit.de/2013/07/Russisches-Polarmeer-Atom-U-Boot... Pictures: https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/A/abruestung-atom-u-boote-anlage-2.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/A/abruestung-atom... Russia also has submarines buried at the ground in the arctic sea. Like the K-27 in the early 80s. https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/russia-updates-maps-of-radioactive-debris-sunk-in-arctic https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/russia-updates... Sunken objects: > 17,000 containers of radioactive waste; 19 ships containing radioactive waste; 14 nuclear reactors, including five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two reactors loaded with nuclear fuel and 735 other pieces of radioactively contaminated heavy machinery.
- Animats 8y agoFrance did that in the 1980s. France has 58 power reactors, of four basic designs.
- coldtea 8y ago>This makes each one effectively as expensive as the last. And as dangerous.
- abalone 8y agoI sincerely hope you realize oceans are functioning ecosystems and not conveniently located safe zones for nuclear disasters. This is the sort of cavalier attitude toward the nuclear waste and accident problem that permeates nearly every HN thread on this topic — and it comes up a lot.
- lucio 8y agoAdd NIMO to the list of social blockage
- virmundi 8y agoWhile we need to be aware of environmental impacts, the same is true of how to mitigate them using existing processes. The French recycle their fuel. Eventually it's not usable in their traditional reactors. They ship the waste to a plant that creates glass logs. The material is then safely stored, as a solid, underground. The US does a poor job of recycling due to the fact that it listened to the environmentalists and anti-terrorist groups in the 70s. Jimmy Carter was told that recycling was bad for the environment (won't someone think of the children if the train overturns), was not cost effective, and would lead to nuclear proliferation due to terrorists dropping from the sky and stealing the train to Mexico [2]. Now we can recycle, and we can reuse the fuel to breed new fuel sources. If we did this 30 years ago, even just the first half of the last clause, we would not be looking down the barrel of climate change. 1 - https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-france-plans-to-do-with-its-nuclear-waste/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-france-plans-to-do-with-i... 2 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-u-s-recycle-nuclear-fuel/#6c097aa390f1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-... * Edit a typo thing of the children -> think of the children.
- ams6110 8y agoWould seem to me that there should be a way, with smaller, standardized designs, to pre-fab most of the precision stuff and just assemble it on site. The things that are hard about older designs are the need for very strong, perfectly cast concrete for the high pressure containment vessel, and the high-pressure precision-welded plumbing for the reactor coolant. The nonradioactive steam handling, turbines and electrical generators should be quite similar to what's used in conventional coal/natural gas plants.