5 ms·

Next generation nuclear reactor to be built in Wyoming

74 points by yincrash 5y ago

Hammershaft 5y ago
Terrapower finally gets a shot to create a demonstration reactor for wasteless nuclear power. I only hope the slated 7 year build time doesn't get delayed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
uomo 5y ago
Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840
lrem 5y ago
500MW peak delivery is not _that_ small. But it still puts the cost at planned 2 $/W, whereas solar apparently ranges between 0.82 and 1.2 $/W. It will require quite some political willpower to get this through.
- bushbaba 5y ago
  How much is solar energy storage for winter months and rainy/cloudy summers though.
  - cbmuser 5y ago
    That’s something that proponents of solar and wind power always happen to “forget” when they make these comparisons. Solar has a capacity factor of around 10% in Europe (don’t know for the US), so it effectively only generates 10% of its maximum generation output every year.
- Darmody 5y ago
  But solar is not able to produce more energy on a demand spike. And batteries are expensive, so if you store it the price goes up. Nuclear is not an alternative but a reinforcement.
  - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
    If I understand it correctly, nuclear power has inherent latency issues that mean it can't respond to demand-spikes within seconds or minutes, but needs about an hour or so? Hence why stored-energy plants a still a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...
    - Darmody 5y ago
      But you don't necessarily need an instant response, at least not always. Some months ago we had very bad weather with almost no wind during days and we had to buy energy from France. It wasn't cheap at all but we had to do it because solar, wind and hydro couldn't supply enough. Nuclear from France did though.
    - cbmuser 5y ago
      > If I understand it correctly, nuclear power has inherent latency issues that mean it can't respond to demand-spikes within seconds or minutes, but needs about an hour or so? No, nuclear plants can regulate within minutes and it’s done in Germany. Source in German: https://www.ktg.org/ktg-wAssets/docs/fg-bet-rph-lastfolgebetrieb-kki2.pdf https://www.ktg.org/ktg-wAssets/docs/fg-bet-rph-lastfolgebet... Fluctuations on the second scale are compensated by the large turbine wheels of the power generators of large plants such as nuclear and coal. Also, normal demand doesn’t change so fast anyways. The fluctuations comes from wind and solar plants.
    - bbojan 5y ago
      "Nuclear power" is a broad term, although it's mostly used to mean light water reactors. Some of the newer designs (eg. salt reactors) can actually respond to load changes pretty quickly, on the order of tens of seconds if my understanding is right.
- cbmuser 5y ago
  Solar has a capacity factor of just 10% while nuclear is above 90%. This means that a solar farm cannot replace a nuclear reactor. Solar needs a backup plant, nuclear doesn’t. So you’re comparing apples and oranges. Plus, this is an experimental reactor and naturally has a lower power output.
MichaelMoser123 5y ago
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/department-energy-picks-two-advanced-nuclear-reactors-demonstration-projects https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/department-energy-pi... an older article that talks about the TerraPower reactor mentioned in the article, they say that it has to run on 20% enriched Uranium, wouldn't that have the potential to create problems with nuclear proliferation? interesting that only one company seems to be working on a thorium cycle reactor https://flibe-energy.com/ https://flibe-energy.com/ . Why don't they invest more into this direction, instead?
TomWhitwell 5y ago
“Natrium”=sodium, and it’s salt cooled. This is genius branding. Makes it sound like the nuclear reactor runs on organic oats.
Tade0 5y ago
This is much less expensive than the recently built nuclear power plant in Belarus, the total cost of which was $11bln for a 2GW plant. Let's see how competitive that will turn out to be in 7 years when it's finished.
comex 5y ago
The Union of Concerned Scientists report linked from the article makes it sound like a disaster: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better But it also comes off as one-sided. I know there are a lot of nuclear power fans on this forum. Does anyone have some good links presenting the other side of the argument, that these reactors are safe and/or necessary?
bbojan 5y ago
No one managed to successfully build a sodium fast reactor so far. We'll see how they do but I'm sceptical. My layman opinion is that the money would have been better invested in some of the new molten salt designs.
fmajid 5y ago
Sodium is extremely corrosive and was a nightmare on the French Superphénix fast breeder reactor, that ended up cancelled.

74 points by yincrash 5y ago

Terrapower finally gets a shot to create a demonstration reactor for wasteless nuclear power. I only hope the slated 7 year build time doesn't get delayed.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

uomo 5y ago

Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27374840

lrem 5y ago

500MW peak delivery is not _that_ small. But it still puts the cost at planned 2 $/W, whereas solar apparently ranges between 0.82 and 1.2 $/W. It will require quite some political willpower to get this through.

bushbaba 5y ago
How much is solar energy storage for winter months and rainy/cloudy summers though.
- cbmuser 5y ago
  That’s something that proponents of solar and wind power always happen to “forget” when they make these comparisons. Solar has a capacity factor of around 10% in Europe (don’t know for the US), so it effectively only generates 10% of its maximum generation output every year.
Darmody 5y ago
But solar is not able to produce more energy on a demand spike. And batteries are expensive, so if you store it the price goes up. Nuclear is not an alternative but a reinforcement.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  If I understand it correctly, nuclear power has inherent latency issues that mean it can't respond to demand-spikes within seconds or minutes, but needs about an hour or so? Hence why stored-energy plants a still a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...
  - Darmody 5y ago
    But you don't necessarily need an instant response, at least not always. Some months ago we had very bad weather with almost no wind during days and we had to buy energy from France. It wasn't cheap at all but we had to do it because solar, wind and hydro couldn't supply enough. Nuclear from France did though.
  - cbmuser 5y ago
    > If I understand it correctly, nuclear power has inherent latency issues that mean it can't respond to demand-spikes within seconds or minutes, but needs about an hour or so? No, nuclear plants can regulate within minutes and it’s done in Germany. Source in German: https://www.ktg.org/ktg-wAssets/docs/fg-bet-rph-lastfolgebetrieb-kki2.pdf https://www.ktg.org/ktg-wAssets/docs/fg-bet-rph-lastfolgebet... Fluctuations on the second scale are compensated by the large turbine wheels of the power generators of large plants such as nuclear and coal. Also, normal demand doesn’t change so fast anyways. The fluctuations comes from wind and solar plants.
  - bbojan 5y ago
    "Nuclear power" is a broad term, although it's mostly used to mean light water reactors. Some of the newer designs (eg. salt reactors) can actually respond to load changes pretty quickly, on the order of tens of seconds if my understanding is right.
cbmuser 5y ago
Solar has a capacity factor of just 10% while nuclear is above 90%. This means that a solar farm cannot replace a nuclear reactor. Solar needs a backup plant, nuclear doesn’t. So you’re comparing apples and oranges. Plus, this is an experimental reactor and naturally has a lower power output.

MichaelMoser123 5y ago

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/department-energy-picks-two-advanced-nuclear-reactors-demonstration-projects https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/department-energy-pi... an older article that talks about the TerraPower reactor mentioned in the article, they say that it has to run on 20% enriched Uranium, wouldn't that have the potential to create problems with nuclear proliferation? interesting that only one company seems to be working on a thorium cycle reactor https://flibe-energy.com/ https://flibe-energy.com/ . Why don't they invest more into this direction, instead?

TomWhitwell 5y ago

“Natrium”=sodium, and it’s salt cooled. This is genius branding. Makes it sound like the nuclear reactor runs on organic oats.

Tade0 5y ago

This is much less expensive than the recently built nuclear power plant in Belarus, the total cost of which was $11bln for a 2GW plant. Let's see how competitive that will turn out to be in 7 years when it's finished.

comex 5y ago

The Union of Concerned Scientists report linked from the article makes it sound like a disaster: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better But it also comes off as one-sided. I know there are a lot of nuclear power fans on this forum. Does anyone have some good links presenting the other side of the argument, that these reactors are safe and/or necessary?

bbojan 5y ago

No one managed to successfully build a sodium fast reactor so far. We'll see how they do but I'm sceptical. My layman opinion is that the money would have been better invested in some of the new molten salt designs.

fmajid 5y ago

Sodium is extremely corrosive and was a nightmare on the French Superphénix fast breeder reactor, that ended up cancelled.