4 ms·

I'm not an nuclear engineer, but I bet it would be easier to deploy more nuclear energy with a many smaller reactor. Pro: smaller reactors would be faster to b

by jokoon 5y ago

I'm not an nuclear engineer, but I bet it would be easier to deploy more nuclear energy with a many smaller reactor. Pro: smaller reactors would be faster to build, as conventional nuclear reactors are large and often use specific techs. They would be built in higher quantities than larger reactors and thus allow more nuclear power generation. Con: economies of scale might mean it generates less electricity overall.

joncrane 5y ago
Funny you mention economies of scale because the whole idea of building many, smaller, identical reactors is essentially leveraging economies of scale in manufacturing. One of the reasons nuclear power is so unpalatable to build is that each plant is a 100% bespoke, one-off build that is insanely expensive and takes decades to pay off through profits. If you could make one design, and create the tooling (and licensing/safety requirements), you could essentially build an endless number of them as long as you could guarantee the process is repeatable. It's basically DevOps for nuclear reactors.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  This could help, but only if those little reactors were bunched up together so they can share operating infrastructure, including staff. NuScale plans to put a half dozen reactors in the same shared structure, for example.
int0x2e 5y ago
I would tend to think the opposite would be true - having many smaller reactors would currently require multiplying the number of controlled sites, each requiring security, redundant cooling and safety systems, emergency power, nuclear waste cooling pools and long term storage, etc. I agree each individual system may be safer if an incident were to happen, but supporting a large fleet of nuclear production sites would be a lot harder in my mind. And this is if we were to completely ignore the huge set of compliance requirements and forms you'd need to fill out and maintain...

by jokoon 5y ago

joncrane 5y ago

Funny you mention economies of scale because the whole idea of building many, smaller, identical reactors is essentially leveraging economies of scale in manufacturing. One of the reasons nuclear power is so unpalatable to build is that each plant is a 100% bespoke, one-off build that is insanely expensive and takes decades to pay off through profits. If you could make one design, and create the tooling (and licensing/safety requirements), you could essentially build an endless number of them as long as you could guarantee the process is repeatable. It's basically DevOps for nuclear reactors.

pfdietz 5y ago
This could help, but only if those little reactors were bunched up together so they can share operating infrastructure, including staff. NuScale plans to put a half dozen reactors in the same shared structure, for example.

int0x2e 5y ago

I would tend to think the opposite would be true - having many smaller reactors would currently require multiplying the number of controlled sites, each requiring security, redundant cooling and safety systems, emergency power, nuclear waste cooling pools and long term storage, etc. I agree each individual system may be safer if an incident were to happen, but supporting a large fleet of nuclear production sites would be a lot harder in my mind. And this is if we were to completely ignore the huge set of compliance requirements and forms you'd need to fill out and maintain...