3 ms·

I agree with you that renewables are cheaper and getting cheaper still in the future. As an example, in California there's 27 GW installed solar power right now

I agree with you that renewables are cheaper and getting cheaper still in the future. As an example, in California there's 27 GW installed solar power right now with an additional 16 GW to be installed in the next 5 years [1]. However, while nuclear power is super expensive, it doesn't have to be that way. The problem is that nuclear power costs are not linear with the output. If the only thing you build is 1GW reactors, they will essentially all be one-of-a-kind. They will all run into production issues, the construction will happen so rarely that you won't build an experienced workforce, you will never enter a virtuous cycle to allow for ever decreasing costs. Contrast that with the naval nuclear reactors. They are being built in New York State [2], at a pace of about 2 per year, using a very static design. The whole thing is so uneventful that most people in New York State are not even aware of that. Each of these reactors produces 210 MW [3]. The cost is classified, but it appears to be of the order of $100MM [4]. So, how can you enter the virtuous cycle? By reducing scale. And this is exactly what this project is about. I for one am rooting for it. [1] https://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar https://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knolls_Atomic_Power_Laboratory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knolls_Atomic_Power_Laboratory [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor [4] https://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Nuclear%20Marine%20Propulsion.pdf https://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%...

epistasis 7y ago
The types of reactors in this article may work out economically, and for the health of the world, having more carbon free options would be fantastic. However I'm extremely skeptical on this actually working out in practice; only time will tell! As for naval reactors in particular, that's the first analysis that I have ever seen that puts them at such a low cost, so that's very valuable info, thank! Most of the time people say that nuclear reactors are far more expensive than civilian reactors, but I've never seen numbers out to it. (I'm not a nuclear expert, but try to listen to as many as I can, and naval reactors are most often referred to as super expensive). The other challenges with the naval design is that it uses highly enriched uranium which is 1) extremely expensive, and 2) not likely to ever be in civilian hands. I think that the highly enriched fuel also shifts some of the cost from construction to fuel costs, in that the higher energy density has benefits. Also, I think that the cooling system could potentially be far cheaper for these systems, as they are sitting in coolant, and don't need to worry about overheating local ecosystems. The high cost of modernizing the cooling system for Diablo Canyon is what stopped its owner from pursuing a license extension.
- credit_guy 7y ago
  I found a more reliable source for the cost of naval nuclear reactors: the Congressional Budget Office [1]. They investigated what it would cost to switch some surface ships from conventional to nuclear power. The main result: "CBO estimated that the acquisition-cost premium for a nuclear ship would be about $1.1 billion per destroyer, $0.8 billion per LSD(X), and $0.9 billion per LH(X)". In particular for the last class LH(X) (helicopter carriers, similar to the Wasp class), the reactors would be two A1B used in the Gerald Ford class of aircraft carriers, which generate about 700 MW. [1] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/05-12-nuclearpropulsion.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-...

epistasis 7y ago

The types of reactors in this article may work out economically, and for the health of the world, having more carbon free options would be fantastic. However I'm extremely skeptical on this actually working out in practice; only time will tell! As for naval reactors in particular, that's the first analysis that I have ever seen that puts them at such a low cost, so that's very valuable info, thank! Most of the time people say that nuclear reactors are far more expensive than civilian reactors, but I've never seen numbers out to it. (I'm not a nuclear expert, but try to listen to as many as I can, and naval reactors are most often referred to as super expensive). The other challenges with the naval design is that it uses highly enriched uranium which is 1) extremely expensive, and 2) not likely to ever be in civilian hands. I think that the highly enriched fuel also shifts some of the cost from construction to fuel costs, in that the higher energy density has benefits. Also, I think that the cooling system could potentially be far cheaper for these systems, as they are sitting in coolant, and don't need to worry about overheating local ecosystems. The high cost of modernizing the cooling system for Diablo Canyon is what stopped its owner from pursuing a license extension.

credit_guy 7y ago
I found a more reliable source for the cost of naval nuclear reactors: the Congressional Budget Office [1]. They investigated what it would cost to switch some surface ships from conventional to nuclear power. The main result: "CBO estimated that the acquisition-cost premium for a nuclear ship would be about $1.1 billion per destroyer, $0.8 billion per LSD(X), and $0.9 billion per LH(X)". In particular for the last class LH(X) (helicopter carriers, similar to the Wasp class), the reactors would be two A1B used in the Gerald Ford class of aircraft carriers, which generate about 700 MW. [1] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/05-12-nuclearpropulsion.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-...