7 ms·

Technically these only for heating reactors are sound business case. From the investor, regulator, customer perspective there are many problems that are not st

by nabla9 6y ago

Technically these only for heating reactors are sound business case. From the investor, regulator, customer perspective there are many problems that are not startup solvable. 1. End-of-life and maintenance guarantees. Transferring nuclear waste and processing them is not cheap. You need to put capital aside to pay for these. Startup going bust and leaving customers to handle with the rest is not an option. 2. Regulations and safety. Just like standard nuclear, you need government subvention (not direct money transfer, but a law that puts upper cap to damages). You can solve these with scale. If you build 1000s of standardized units of small heating reactors, special waste management and transportation solutions for just this type becomes economical. If they sell only 500, lifetime cost can be astronomical.

gruez 6y ago
>there are many problems that are not startup solvable. >1. End-of-life and maintenance guarantees. Transferring nuclear waste and processing them is not cheap. You need to put capital aside to pay for these. Why isn't that solvable? You just provided a solution, ie. rather than charging $100k for a reactor, they'll charge $100k + $20k disposal fee (to be put in a trust or something). Why can't this be done by a startup?
- samcheng 6y ago
  The cleanup costs for a nuclear reactor can be more than the construction cost, and novel / experimental reactor types can present major challenges after decommissioning. Your trust idea is a good one, maybe with some insurance added, but it really does impact the economics of the project. That said, nuclear reactors as thermal generators are a great idea, particularly for e.g. cement manufacturing, which is a huge producer of greenhouse gasses. This is one area where I support nuclear over wind/solar. I hope this works!
  - gruez 6y ago
    >cement manufacturing, which is a huge producer of greenhouse gasses AFAIK most of the co2 is from the chemical reaction itself, not the heat source used. From wikipedia: >First, the limestone (calcium carbonate) is burned to remove its carbon, producing lime (calcium oxide) in what is known as a calcination reaction. This single chemical reaction is a major emitter of global carbon dioxide emissions.[10]
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      > AFAIK most of the co2 is from the chemical reaction itself, not the heat source used. About half, I think (depending on the fuel used). Cement manufacture is a major destination for supposedly "recycled" plastic, btw. Cement kilns are very flexible on fuel quality.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  I think the idea was the per-unit disposal cost is hard to predict because it varies greatly depending on how many units are sold.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Because of Economies of scale. There is nonlinear decrease in the cost per unit when the number of units sold increases. The total cost per unit depends on how many units are produced. If you process the waste from few units, the disposal fee per unit is very expensive. If you sell thousands of units, you can plan for very large scale standardize disposal procedure that drives down price to fraction what it for small number of units. Customers don't want to pay for startup risk. So first 100 - 500 units sold could be too expensive. You could solve this problem by selling the company to someone big, like Berkshire Hathaway Energy. They have shoulders to take the risk and money to do the capital investments when the time comes.
08-15 6y ago
> Transferring nuclear waste and processing them is not cheap. Actually, it is, because there is so little of it. However, in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the US government declared that only the US government can handle nuclear waster, and nuclear power plant operators have to pay into a fund so that the waste handling will be funded. It then spent the following 38 years doing a grand total of exactly nothing, forcing the power plant operators to store the waste. And not for lack of funds, because the Nuclear Waste Fund sits an an unspent $45 billion. Please stop pretending nuclear waste was either a financial or a technical problem. It's purely a political problem. > a law that puts upper cap to damages Which US law places a cap on damages caused by nuclear power plants?
- ncmncm 6y ago
  > ... unspent $45 billion Which has, of course, long since been spent. When anything is done, we will be taxed for it. $12B was handed over to contractors for work done on Yucca Mountain. Wikipedia: > "US court of appeals ruled that nuclear utilities may stop paying into the nuclear waste ... The fee ended May 16, 2014." > "Lacking an operating repository, the federal government initially paid utility companies somewhere between $300 and $500 million per year in compensation for failing to comply with the contract it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998. For the ten years after 2015 it is estimated to cost taxpayers $24 billion in payments from the Judgment Fund. The Judgment Fund is not subject to budget rules..." So, $47b was collected from ratepayers for extra-high-cost power, and sent to the govt. Now, taxpayers are paying out $2.4 billion, every year, directly to nuke operators, who pocket it. ($2.4b would buy a pretty big solar farm.) When something is determined to do about the waste, there will be no nuke ratepayers left, at several times the cost of renewables -- or operators, except those kept open to collect their $2.4b. Instead, taxpayers will pick up the bill. Again.
  - 08-15 6y ago
    > Which has, of course, long since been spent. Of course. But not on anything related to nuclear waste. In plain language, it has been stolen by the government. If you don't like the taxpayer having to pick up the tab left by incompetent politicians, you should have voted differently.

by nabla9 6y ago

gruez 6y ago

>there are many problems that are not startup solvable. >1. End-of-life and maintenance guarantees. Transferring nuclear waste and processing them is not cheap. You need to put capital aside to pay for these. Why isn't that solvable? You just provided a solution, ie. rather than charging $100k for a reactor, they'll charge $100k + $20k disposal fee (to be put in a trust or something). Why can't this be done by a startup?

samcheng 6y ago
The cleanup costs for a nuclear reactor can be more than the construction cost, and novel / experimental reactor types can present major challenges after decommissioning. Your trust idea is a good one, maybe with some insurance added, but it really does impact the economics of the project. That said, nuclear reactors as thermal generators are a great idea, particularly for e.g. cement manufacturing, which is a huge producer of greenhouse gasses. This is one area where I support nuclear over wind/solar. I hope this works!
- gruez 6y ago
  >cement manufacturing, which is a huge producer of greenhouse gasses AFAIK most of the co2 is from the chemical reaction itself, not the heat source used. From wikipedia: >First, the limestone (calcium carbonate) is burned to remove its carbon, producing lime (calcium oxide) in what is known as a calcination reaction. This single chemical reaction is a major emitter of global carbon dioxide emissions.[10]
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    > AFAIK most of the co2 is from the chemical reaction itself, not the heat source used. About half, I think (depending on the fuel used). Cement manufacture is a major destination for supposedly "recycled" plastic, btw. Cement kilns are very flexible on fuel quality.
aidenn0 6y ago
I think the idea was the per-unit disposal cost is hard to predict because it varies greatly depending on how many units are sold.
nabla9 6y ago
Because of Economies of scale. There is nonlinear decrease in the cost per unit when the number of units sold increases. The total cost per unit depends on how many units are produced. If you process the waste from few units, the disposal fee per unit is very expensive. If you sell thousands of units, you can plan for very large scale standardize disposal procedure that drives down price to fraction what it for small number of units. Customers don't want to pay for startup risk. So first 100 - 500 units sold could be too expensive. You could solve this problem by selling the company to someone big, like Berkshire Hathaway Energy. They have shoulders to take the risk and money to do the capital investments when the time comes.

08-15 6y ago

> Transferring nuclear waste and processing them is not cheap. Actually, it is, because there is so little of it. However, in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the US government declared that only the US government can handle nuclear waster, and nuclear power plant operators have to pay into a fund so that the waste handling will be funded. It then spent the following 38 years doing a grand total of exactly nothing, forcing the power plant operators to store the waste. And not for lack of funds, because the Nuclear Waste Fund sits an an unspent $45 billion. Please stop pretending nuclear waste was either a financial or a technical problem. It's purely a political problem. > a law that puts upper cap to damages Which US law places a cap on damages caused by nuclear power plants?

ncmncm 6y ago
> ... unspent $45 billion Which has, of course, long since been spent. When anything is done, we will be taxed for it. $12B was handed over to contractors for work done on Yucca Mountain. Wikipedia: > "US court of appeals ruled that nuclear utilities may stop paying into the nuclear waste ... The fee ended May 16, 2014." > "Lacking an operating repository, the federal government initially paid utility companies somewhere between $300 and $500 million per year in compensation for failing to comply with the contract it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998. For the ten years after 2015 it is estimated to cost taxpayers $24 billion in payments from the Judgment Fund. The Judgment Fund is not subject to budget rules..." So, $47b was collected from ratepayers for extra-high-cost power, and sent to the govt. Now, taxpayers are paying out $2.4 billion, every year, directly to nuke operators, who pocket it. ($2.4b would buy a pretty big solar farm.) When something is determined to do about the waste, there will be no nuke ratepayers left, at several times the cost of renewables -- or operators, except those kept open to collect their $2.4b. Instead, taxpayers will pick up the bill. Again.
- 08-15 6y ago
  > Which has, of course, long since been spent. Of course. But not on anything related to nuclear waste. In plain language, it has been stolen by the government. If you don't like the taxpayer having to pick up the tab left by incompetent politicians, you should have voted differently.