5 ms·

What is an economical reactor model available to be built today? Practically every commercial reactor built seems to be a multi-billion dollar project that take

by Klinky 7y ago

What is an economical reactor model available to be built today? Practically every commercial reactor built seems to be a multi-billion dollar project that takes years to complete, with cost overruns common.

nine_k 7y ago
Fear and doubt -> rare and unique reactors -> no economy of scale -> poor economic results -> more fear and doubt :(
acidburnNSA 7y ago
Shipyard-constructed several-hundred-megawatt pressurized water reactors. The Navy has basically achieved economies of mass production with their reactors. The submarine and aircraft carrier weapons systems are expensive, but if you just did something similar for civilian power, I believe you could capture both economies of scale and economies of mass production. For decarbonizing the world very rapidly, this would be my going-in plan (if I could choose). Nuclear success stories are stories of standardization of design and repetition. Most of the boondoggles are first-of-a-kind or first-in-2-decades builds.
- fsh 7y ago
  Both Chernobyl's RBMK and Fukushima's GE BWR reactors are widely used standard designs.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    RBMK were. They're over 50 year old designs now. Fukushima was just 30 years old also generation 2 (but improved) BWR, not the old GE BWR either. The reactors under way are generation III+, notably safer, and further improvements are being made. And many of the reactors now are PWR.
  - lucb1e 7y ago
    Chernobyl was a combination of issues and can't really happen again today. Fukushima is bad but very few people died (counting those that'll get cancer). Many, many, many more people die from the pollution caused by coal every year, and many, many more will die from global warming. If one such failure amongst hundreds of reactors active for over fifty years is the price of saving millions every year, then so be it. We should use solar/wind/water to the full extent possible but not exclude nuclear energy, especially with the latest factor designs. And you can bet that Japan learned from Fukushima and that it's very unlikely that'll reoccur as well. Plus, most reactors aren't built near major fault lines, so this failure isn't even possible in most places. Let's not kill millions because of a TV drama. It's news exactly because it's rare, that's why you don't hear of people dying while installing roof solar or from air pollution.
- Klinky 7y ago
  Which Navy models have economies of scale? These reactors look to be built on contract from a variety of vendors. Additionally these designs look to prioritize small size and lack of need to refuel over fuel flexibility and refuelability, plus they have power output constraints due to size compared to land-based reactors.
roenxi 7y ago
> ... with cost overruns common. Presumably that is going to be consistent with any large industrially planned operation though. The overruns aren't going to be technology-specific, they are going to be related to the tendering process. If the planners are incentivised for accuracy there will be one, maybe two overrun projects then the assumptions get adjusted. So if it is routine that suggests that there is some sort of incentive problem. An industry planner will have little difficulty estimating an accurate cost of the technical parts of a project. Using historic averages or model + 20% contingency usually gets most of the way there. If the estimates are consistently wrong there are political issues at play.

by Klinky 7y ago

nine_k 7y ago

Fear and doubt -> rare and unique reactors -> no economy of scale -> poor economic results -> more fear and doubt :(

acidburnNSA 7y ago

Shipyard-constructed several-hundred-megawatt pressurized water reactors. The Navy has basically achieved economies of mass production with their reactors. The submarine and aircraft carrier weapons systems are expensive, but if you just did something similar for civilian power, I believe you could capture both economies of scale and economies of mass production. For decarbonizing the world very rapidly, this would be my going-in plan (if I could choose). Nuclear success stories are stories of standardization of design and repetition. Most of the boondoggles are first-of-a-kind or first-in-2-decades builds.

fsh 7y ago
Both Chernobyl's RBMK and Fukushima's GE BWR reactors are widely used standard designs.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  RBMK were. They're over 50 year old designs now. Fukushima was just 30 years old also generation 2 (but improved) BWR, not the old GE BWR either. The reactors under way are generation III+, notably safer, and further improvements are being made. And many of the reactors now are PWR.
- lucb1e 7y ago
  Chernobyl was a combination of issues and can't really happen again today. Fukushima is bad but very few people died (counting those that'll get cancer). Many, many, many more people die from the pollution caused by coal every year, and many, many more will die from global warming. If one such failure amongst hundreds of reactors active for over fifty years is the price of saving millions every year, then so be it. We should use solar/wind/water to the full extent possible but not exclude nuclear energy, especially with the latest factor designs. And you can bet that Japan learned from Fukushima and that it's very unlikely that'll reoccur as well. Plus, most reactors aren't built near major fault lines, so this failure isn't even possible in most places. Let's not kill millions because of a TV drama. It's news exactly because it's rare, that's why you don't hear of people dying while installing roof solar or from air pollution.
Klinky 7y ago
Which Navy models have economies of scale? These reactors look to be built on contract from a variety of vendors. Additionally these designs look to prioritize small size and lack of need to refuel over fuel flexibility and refuelability, plus they have power output constraints due to size compared to land-based reactors.

roenxi 7y ago

> ... with cost overruns common. Presumably that is going to be consistent with any large industrially planned operation though. The overruns aren't going to be technology-specific, they are going to be related to the tendering process. If the planners are incentivised for accuracy there will be one, maybe two overrun projects then the assumptions get adjusted. So if it is routine that suggests that there is some sort of incentive problem. An industry planner will have little difficulty estimating an accurate cost of the technical parts of a project. Using historic averages or model + 20% contingency usually gets most of the way there. If the estimates are consistently wrong there are political issues at play.