3 ms·

"We can't build it!" You should check out the recently approved in the US nuclear reactor by NuScale[1]. It is what everyone has been waiting for. A small (60M

"We can't build it!" You should check out the recently approved in the US nuclear reactor by NuScale[1]. It is what everyone has been waiting for. A small (60MW electrical output) reactor built in a factory and shipped to the power plant site. This could be a real game changer. They had to spend $500 million on just paperwork to get it approved, but they did it. [1]https://www.nuscalepower.com/ https://www.nuscalepower.com/

epistasis 6y ago
I have been following this closely, as well as the other nuclear startups. If nuclear becomes buildable again, it will almost certainly because of the efforts of NuScale, Terrapower, or other small scrappy startup. As you say. It would be a game changer, and the game must be changed before we start deploying nuclear. But they haven't built anything yet. It's fairly easy to design something and show that it's safe. The AP1000 got approval, but the designs turned out to be too difficult to build, with the builders saying that some parts of the design were "unconstructable", resulting them in building their own design instead, which then had to get reapproved. NuScale's bet is that factory-based construction will drive down the construction cost to the level that it compensates for the lack of scale that the larger reactors' teams used as justification for going really big.
- njarboe 6y ago
  "It's fairly easy to design something and show that it's safe." To spend 2 million man hours and 1/2 a billion dollars on creating documentation for certification? I would agree that one never knows if something will be successful until it is, but if it was "fairly easy" to get approval to build working reactors then a lot more people would be building them. I think a way to get a lot more innovation in this space would be to designate an area in the US, maybe the former nuclear testing area, as a place where the radiation protection rules could be relaxed and work on reactors could be done at a much quicker pace.
  - pas 6y ago
    The problem is not with radiation. It's cost. There's no efficient way of "trying out" a design. Even if we would allow anyone to build almost anything with constant NRC monitoring, the cost would kill the project. (And we wouldn't really gain much insight, because of complexity. This is basically the same problem that we have with the FDA. Yes phase I-II-III clinical trials are expensive, but biology is complicated.) Now, that said, the whole problem is that of scale. There's no real money in building nuclear power plants. It's basically a few fanatics doing it at new and old companies. If the US would announce a 2T USD new plant budget, there would be competition. And even then, probably we would need to build a few very similar plants to have some sort of efficient design.

epistasis 6y ago

I have been following this closely, as well as the other nuclear startups. If nuclear becomes buildable again, it will almost certainly because of the efforts of NuScale, Terrapower, or other small scrappy startup. As you say. It would be a game changer, and the game must be changed before we start deploying nuclear. But they haven't built anything yet. It's fairly easy to design something and show that it's safe. The AP1000 got approval, but the designs turned out to be too difficult to build, with the builders saying that some parts of the design were "unconstructable", resulting them in building their own design instead, which then had to get reapproved. NuScale's bet is that factory-based construction will drive down the construction cost to the level that it compensates for the lack of scale that the larger reactors' teams used as justification for going really big.

njarboe 6y ago
"It's fairly easy to design something and show that it's safe." To spend 2 million man hours and 1/2 a billion dollars on creating documentation for certification? I would agree that one never knows if something will be successful until it is, but if it was "fairly easy" to get approval to build working reactors then a lot more people would be building them. I think a way to get a lot more innovation in this space would be to designate an area in the US, maybe the former nuclear testing area, as a place where the radiation protection rules could be relaxed and work on reactors could be done at a much quicker pace.
- pas 6y ago
  The problem is not with radiation. It's cost. There's no efficient way of "trying out" a design. Even if we would allow anyone to build almost anything with constant NRC monitoring, the cost would kill the project. (And we wouldn't really gain much insight, because of complexity. This is basically the same problem that we have with the FDA. Yes phase I-II-III clinical trials are expensive, but biology is complicated.) Now, that said, the whole problem is that of scale. There's no real money in building nuclear power plants. It's basically a few fanatics doing it at new and old companies. If the US would announce a 2T USD new plant budget, there would be competition. And even then, probably we would need to build a few very similar plants to have some sort of efficient design.