6 ms·

Article gave absolutely no indication of its dimensions. How "tiny" is it exactly?

kyrra 6y ago
> The reactor measures 65 feet tall x 9 feet in diameter. It sits within a containment vessel measuring 76 feet tall x 15 feet in diameter. Per: https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview
- tehabe 6y ago
  you forgot to mention that those 23 m high containment vessels are places in in a pool which of course have to be much bigger than that: "The reactor and containment vessel operate inside a water-filled pool that is built below grade." We'll see of this is in any way or form sustainable, especially since uranium is also a finite ressource.
  - deeeeeplearning 6y ago
    >We'll see of this is in any way or form sustainable, especially since uranium is also a finite ressource. I believe at current consumption rates there is still several hundred years worth of uranium. Presumably Fusion will have been figured out by then or we've killed ourselves with a climate disaster or something worse.
    - welfare 6y ago
      Nope, at the current rate of consumption it will last 70-80 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20World%20Nuclear%20Association%2C%20yet%20another%20industry%20group,for%20some%2070%E2%80%9380%20years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#:~:text=According....
      - deeeeeplearning 6y ago
        First section your Article: "As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015). At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply. The identified reserves as of 2017 recoverable at US$260/kg are 7.99 million tons (compared to 7.64 million tons in 2015).[9]" Doesn't seem clearcut
      - petre 6y ago
        I wouldn't worry too much about running out of nuclear fuel. There's also Pu used in MOX fuel, breeder reactors, nuclear fuel reprocessing.
      - tlb 6y ago
        Almost all predictions of running out of ores have been wrong. They’re based on “proven reserves,” but mining companies don’t bother proving much beyond 50 years worth.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        No, these are the reserve that are available at a given price. It is very sensitive to technology. Moreover, price of uranium is a small part of the cost of a powerplant, so there is not as much price sensitivity. We're still good for around ~200 years. Also, fuel can be reprocessed, and we can use other things than Uranium
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    There's ~4 billion tons of uranium dissolved in seawater, too. Which is enough for a millenia or three - if we used it for all of our power needs.
    - jabl 6y ago
      Add in breeder reactors and reprocessing providing a factor of 200 improvement in fuel usage, and we have enough uranium for millions of years.
    - SamBam 6y ago
      How much energy would it take to extract one ton of uranium from the ocean?
      - Symmetry 6y ago
        Well, according to "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" >Japanese researchers have found a technique for extracting uranium from seawater at a cost of $100–300 per kilogram of uranium, in comparison with a current cost of about $20/kg for uranium from ore. Because uranium contains so much more energy per ton than traditional fuels, this 5-fold or 15-fold increase in the cost of uranium would have little effect on the cost of nuclear power: nuclear power’s price is dominated by the cost of power-station construction and decommissioning, not by the cost of the fuel. Even a price of $300/kg would increase the cost of nuclear energy by only about 0.3 p per kWh. The expense of uranium extraction could be reduced by combining it with another use of seawater – for example, power-station cooling. https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_165.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_165.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_174.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_174.shtml
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        Do you know if withouthotair is actively maintained? I used it in school more than a decade ago and I would love to reread a new version. I know the author died in 2016.
      - Invictus0 6y ago
nickik 6y ago
Its not tiny at all, these are gigantic 'modules'. Its only small in comparison to a normal PWR reactor.
foxyv 6y ago
Just barely too big to go on a standard tractor trailer. But small enough to be portable by a oversize load tractor trailer. Kind of like the blades for very large wind turbines in west Texas.
- m463 6y ago
  went across the a few years back and saw a LOT of those on trucks on the interstate. Maybe not a lot, but you notice when a truck is carrying something several hundred feet long down the road.
- 7952 6y ago
  The weight (590 tonnes according to wiki) is likely to be an issue. You need specialist vehicles that connect to a waterway or railroad.
  - foxyv 6y ago
    Yeah there is no way that will be transportable on a road unless it is transported in parts. 75 tonnes is about the limit with special permits. I wonder if the 590 tons includes the fuel?
adrianmonk 6y ago
Maybe tiny refers to the power output. The article says it makes 50 megawatts. Compare that to a nuclear plant near me which has two reactors that each generate 1280 megawatts. So it would take about 25 of these to equal the power output of a traditional nuclear reactor.
- petre 6y ago
  Yes but it's inherently safer. Utility scale nuclear was scaled up from naval reactors which are smaller, use highly enriched uranium as opposed to LEU and are safer. Alvin Weinberg, the father of several LWR designs cautioned about the safety of utility scale reactors (17:51): https://youtu.be/EviEN0ScOwg https://youtu.be/EviEN0ScOwg The NuScale design also uses LEU and a plant is comprised of up to 12 of these modules sitting in water pools. You can view it as a battery pack where batteris are continously rotated as they are refuelled.
  - jabl 6y ago
    To nitpick, some naval reactors are designed to use LEU. E.g. French submarines run on 7% enriched fuel. And reportedly Chinese subs also use LEU.
- baking 6y ago
  They are intended to replace small coal plants out West where coal is the only viable option for baseline load.

> The reactor measures 65 feet tall x 9 feet in diameter. It sits within a containment vessel measuring 76 feet tall x 15 feet in diameter. Per: https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview

tehabe 6y ago
you forgot to mention that those 23 m high containment vessels are places in in a pool which of course have to be much bigger than that: "The reactor and containment vessel operate inside a water-filled pool that is built below grade." We'll see of this is in any way or form sustainable, especially since uranium is also a finite ressource.
- deeeeeplearning 6y ago
  >We'll see of this is in any way or form sustainable, especially since uranium is also a finite ressource. I believe at current consumption rates there is still several hundred years worth of uranium. Presumably Fusion will have been figured out by then or we've killed ourselves with a climate disaster or something worse.
  - welfare 6y ago
    Nope, at the current rate of consumption it will last 70-80 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20World%20Nuclear%20Association%2C%20yet%20another%20industry%20group,for%20some%2070%E2%80%9380%20years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#:~:text=According....
    - deeeeeplearning 6y ago
      First section your Article: "As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015). At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply. The identified reserves as of 2017 recoverable at US$260/kg are 7.99 million tons (compared to 7.64 million tons in 2015).[9]" Doesn't seem clearcut
    - petre 6y ago
      I wouldn't worry too much about running out of nuclear fuel. There's also Pu used in MOX fuel, breeder reactors, nuclear fuel reprocessing.
    - tlb 6y ago
      Almost all predictions of running out of ores have been wrong. They’re based on “proven reserves,” but mining companies don’t bother proving much beyond 50 years worth.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      No, these are the reserve that are available at a given price. It is very sensitive to technology. Moreover, price of uranium is a small part of the cost of a powerplant, so there is not as much price sensitivity. We're still good for around ~200 years. Also, fuel can be reprocessed, and we can use other things than Uranium
- DuskStar 6y ago
  There's ~4 billion tons of uranium dissolved in seawater, too. Which is enough for a millenia or three - if we used it for all of our power needs.
  - jabl 6y ago
    Add in breeder reactors and reprocessing providing a factor of 200 improvement in fuel usage, and we have enough uranium for millions of years.
  - SamBam 6y ago
    How much energy would it take to extract one ton of uranium from the ocean?
    - Symmetry 6y ago
      Well, according to "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" >Japanese researchers have found a technique for extracting uranium from seawater at a cost of $100–300 per kilogram of uranium, in comparison with a current cost of about $20/kg for uranium from ore. Because uranium contains so much more energy per ton than traditional fuels, this 5-fold or 15-fold increase in the cost of uranium would have little effect on the cost of nuclear power: nuclear power’s price is dominated by the cost of power-station construction and decommissioning, not by the cost of the fuel. Even a price of $300/kg would increase the cost of nuclear energy by only about 0.3 p per kWh. The expense of uranium extraction could be reduced by combining it with another use of seawater – for example, power-station cooling. https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_165.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_165.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_174.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_174.shtml
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        Do you know if withouthotair is actively maintained? I used it in school more than a decade ago and I would love to reread a new version. I know the author died in 2016.
    - Invictus0 6y ago

nickik 6y ago

Its not tiny at all, these are gigantic 'modules'. Its only small in comparison to a normal PWR reactor.

foxyv 6y ago

Just barely too big to go on a standard tractor trailer. But small enough to be portable by a oversize load tractor trailer. Kind of like the blades for very large wind turbines in west Texas.

m463 6y ago
went across the a few years back and saw a LOT of those on trucks on the interstate. Maybe not a lot, but you notice when a truck is carrying something several hundred feet long down the road.
7952 6y ago
The weight (590 tonnes according to wiki) is likely to be an issue. You need specialist vehicles that connect to a waterway or railroad.
- foxyv 6y ago
  Yeah there is no way that will be transportable on a road unless it is transported in parts. 75 tonnes is about the limit with special permits. I wonder if the 590 tons includes the fuel?

adrianmonk 6y ago

Maybe tiny refers to the power output. The article says it makes 50 megawatts. Compare that to a nuclear plant near me which has two reactors that each generate 1280 megawatts. So it would take about 25 of these to equal the power output of a traditional nuclear reactor.

petre 6y ago
Yes but it's inherently safer. Utility scale nuclear was scaled up from naval reactors which are smaller, use highly enriched uranium as opposed to LEU and are safer. Alvin Weinberg, the father of several LWR designs cautioned about the safety of utility scale reactors (17:51): https://youtu.be/EviEN0ScOwg https://youtu.be/EviEN0ScOwg The NuScale design also uses LEU and a plant is comprised of up to 12 of these modules sitting in water pools. You can view it as a battery pack where batteris are continously rotated as they are refuelled.
- jabl 6y ago
  To nitpick, some naval reactors are designed to use LEU. E.g. French submarines run on 7% enriched fuel. And reportedly Chinese subs also use LEU.
baking 6y ago
They are intended to replace small coal plants out West where coal is the only viable option for baseline load.