4 ms·

I know it seems kind of dismissive, but there is approximately zero chance that these will be built. Even if the underlying idea has merit—which I think it coul

I know it seems kind of dismissive, but there is approximately zero chance that these will be built. Even if the underlying idea has merit—which I think it could in some circumstances—the combination of reduction in renewable prices, a complex political environment, and the UK’s inability to commit to infrastructure projects means that this project will be a money sink that will never deliver. Maybe if we had taken this kind of approach 30 years ago, there’d have been a decent possibility of it working out, but it seems too late now.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
They are small, quick to build and useful for quick infrastructure upgrades. I imagine they would have a different place in economics and politics than the grand old billion-dollar plants of the past. It doesn't take much commitment to build one of these. That's the entire idea.
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  These are 440MW reactors. They are not ‘small’, and they’ll still take about the same time to build, because the modular efficiencies here only apply to a small part of the construction timeline. They’re also $2.7B (might be £). These are not anything like a “different place in economics and politics”.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    That is really pretty small. Modern big plants are 30-40GW, 100 times larger. That makes these 'toy' nuclear plants. And they cost a linear increment of what one grand plant would cost. Around 10%. Making them definitely a 'different place in economics and politics'. This is all clear from the article. Just being contrary isn't adding to the conversation. How about discussing the potential to build scalable plants, with room to grow as demand grows? Things like that, which should guide the future of nuclear.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      You have overstated the size of modern NPPs by more than an order of magnitude.
      - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Right, sorry. But still this expandable plant plan is still 10% of the size.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        No. There are no 3-4 GW(e) nuclear plants. The largest nuclear power reactor in the world has a net electrical output of 1.66 GW(e).
        pfdietz 6y ago
        (Clarification: I meant no 3-4GW(e) reactors, not clusters of reactors of that total aggregate output.)
      - imtringued 6y ago
        Hinkley Point C consists of two 1600MW reactors. So the claim is off by slightly less than an order of magnitude, not by more than one.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        His statement was off by a factor of ~20 (on the power of the reactor; the proper comparison is reactor vs. reactor, not reactor vs. multiple reactors), or more than an order of magnitude,

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

They are small, quick to build and useful for quick infrastructure upgrades. I imagine they would have a different place in economics and politics than the grand old billion-dollar plants of the past. It doesn't take much commitment to build one of these. That's the entire idea.

Schiendelman 6y ago
These are 440MW reactors. They are not ‘small’, and they’ll still take about the same time to build, because the modular efficiencies here only apply to a small part of the construction timeline. They’re also $2.7B (might be £). These are not anything like a “different place in economics and politics”.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  That is really pretty small. Modern big plants are 30-40GW, 100 times larger. That makes these 'toy' nuclear plants. And they cost a linear increment of what one grand plant would cost. Around 10%. Making them definitely a 'different place in economics and politics'. This is all clear from the article. Just being contrary isn't adding to the conversation. How about discussing the potential to build scalable plants, with room to grow as demand grows? Things like that, which should guide the future of nuclear.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    You have overstated the size of modern NPPs by more than an order of magnitude.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Right, sorry. But still this expandable plant plan is still 10% of the size.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        No. There are no 3-4 GW(e) nuclear plants. The largest nuclear power reactor in the world has a net electrical output of 1.66 GW(e).
        pfdietz 6y ago
        (Clarification: I meant no 3-4GW(e) reactors, not clusters of reactors of that total aggregate output.)
    - imtringued 6y ago
      Hinkley Point C consists of two 1600MW reactors. So the claim is off by slightly less than an order of magnitude, not by more than one.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        His statement was off by a factor of ~20 (on the power of the reactor; the proper comparison is reactor vs. reactor, not reactor vs. multiple reactors), or more than an order of magnitude,