5 ms·
Layman's question: I don't see how this small reactor is so unique or why it took so long to be developed for regulatory approval. The article claims it produce
by shadowprofile77 6y ago
Layman's question: I don't see how this small reactor is so unique or why it took so long to be developed for regulatory approval. The article claims it produces about 50MW of power with a planned 60MW version. Well, there are already very compact reactors in use on today's aircraft carriers (the A1B and A4W) that produce a much larger 500 to 700MW per module and are also relatively small (after all they fit on individual ships). And obviously deemed quite safe for the exact same reason -they're on ships that travel to all major ports and contain thousands of crew members right inside the same metal hull that the reactor is in. Even more compact and fit into an even smaller vessel quite safely for the crew: submarine reactors like the S8G, which produces over 220MW and measures only 42 x 55 feet in size, with a weight that's not unreasonably greater than that of the NuScale
Basically: What's so dramatically difficult about doing the same for a terrestrial compact reactor to make something like the NuScale take so long to get approval?
- njarboe 6y agoThe $1/2 billion they had to spend due to paperwork related to certification of the design. From an earlier comment[1] from a different thread about this approval quoting NuScale's press release: "NuScale spent over $500 million, with the backing of Fluor, and over 2 million labor hours to develop the information needed to prepare its DCA application" Military reactors don't have to go through this process and those designs (modified to work on land, etc) would. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24346808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24346808
- shadowprofile77 6y agoIn other words, the "impracticality" of compact, safe terrestrial reactor designs is almost entirely created by an immense mountain of bureaucratic hurdle that the military is excepted from? I can see the need for safety and careful documentation of contingencies but the scale of what you describe is simply dismaying. Thank you for that answer and link. checking further now.
- shadowprofile77 6y agoAlso, I can't even begin to imagine how much paperwork would be necessary (in literal visual, procedural terms) for the cost of fulfilling it to reach half a billion fucking dollars and 2 million man hours to fulfill. What would this even contain? Multiple 200+ page technical laboratory test breakdowns for every single nut and bolt and washer in the reactor set-up?
- hansthehorse 6y agoNaval reactors use fuel that is enriched to weapons grade. I'm pretty sure we don't want that sitting around in towns all over America.