4 ms·

You are likely familiar with the quip that "While in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is." Here's a delightful lett

by nkurz 7y ago

You are likely familiar with the quip that "While in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is." Here's a delightful letter by "The Father of the Nuclear Navy" Admiral Hyman Rickover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover) on how that saying applies to nuclear reactor design. Excerpts: An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose ("omnibus reactor"). (7) Very little develop- ment is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now. On the other hand, a practical reactor plant can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated. It's a short two-page letter, so I won't excerpt more. It merits reading in full.

freepor 7y ago
My preferred formulation is “In theory, it works in practice; in practice, it works in theory.”
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 7y ago
That really does sum up all the gaps between the promises of "too cheap to meter" and the practical expensive reality. Doubly so for things that haven't made it out of the lab at all, such as thorium reactors. There's always people willing to give the "academic reactor" sales pitch for nuclear on here, especially as a reason not to proceed with some scheme using a renewable, proven but intermittent technology like wind or solar.
jhayward 7y ago
He has a quote from somewhere that I can't locate at the moment which is (paraphrased) "any new reactor design is always safer and more efficient than existing designs, until they get built, which is when they become expensive and less safe". I always have to refrain from trotting that out whenever the pro-nuclear fans trot out how wonderful Gen-IV, or MSR, or whatever lights up their fantasies will be.

by nkurz 7y ago

freepor 7y ago

My preferred formulation is “In theory, it works in practice; in practice, it works in theory.”

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pjc50 7y ago

That really does sum up all the gaps between the promises of "too cheap to meter" and the practical expensive reality. Doubly so for things that haven't made it out of the lab at all, such as thorium reactors. There's always people willing to give the "academic reactor" sales pitch for nuclear on here, especially as a reason not to proceed with some scheme using a renewable, proven but intermittent technology like wind or solar.

jhayward 7y ago

He has a quote from somewhere that I can't locate at the moment which is (paraphrased) "any new reactor design is always safer and more efficient than existing designs, until they get built, which is when they become expensive and less safe". I always have to refrain from trotting that out whenever the pro-nuclear fans trot out how wonderful Gen-IV, or MSR, or whatever lights up their fantasies will be.