3 ms·

It will be a win when it's on the grid and running. Producing a design has never been a challenge for nuclear power, that's the easy part. The hard part has be

It will be a win when it's on the grid and running. Producing a design has never been a challenge for nuclear power, that's the easy part. The hard part has been building the designs.

linkdink 4y ago
That's exactly the problem this modular type is supposed to address. > small modular reactors (SMRs) are designed to be small enough to build in a factory before being shipped
- epistasis 4y ago
  Right, but that's why we it won't be a win until it's generating. We don't know that this manufacturing method will work out better than prior attempts. The AP1000, was supposed to address construction problems by being able to ship in large parts already constructed. But that failed so miserably that SMRs-long ignored because they weren't thought to be economically efficient-became the last ditch effort to build nuclear. And the AP1000 failed because of all the on-site mismanagement of things as simple as concrete pours. SMRs are unproven in at least two regards: 1) ability to manufacture in a factory economically, and 2) ability to construct all the on-site infrastructure for the SMR to generate the electricity.
  - Accujack 4y ago
    >We don't know that this manufacturing method will work out better than prior attempts. There are never certainties in anything except in hindsight. Most people with expertise who have reviewed SMR designs (and there are many) believe there's a high probability of the central manufacturing concept being able to work. Factories are a very well known concept at this point.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Renewable builds typically come in within 10% of the contracted cost. You get certainty by installing things in very large quantities, with rapid cycle time.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > ability to construct all the on-site infrastructure for the SMR to generate the electricity. I'm a little confused by this, as all existing reactor designs required both the reactor and their infrastructure to be built on-site. I'm not sure why you think it would be an open question to just do the infrastructure.
  - linkdink 4y ago
    I see what you mean now. The unknown of if it will be successful. Not the existence of the intent. You wrote it, I just misunderstood it.
njarboe 4y ago
The design might not not be hard but getting it approved is a real pain. "NuScale completed the first NRC review of an advanced reactor application, and overall the NuScale DCA review was a success. Staff completed review of the first small modular reactor design in 41 months following docketing of the application. The review was thorough; it involved over a quarter million review hours, about two million pages of documentation made available for review or audit, and about 100 gigabytes of test data." [1] 1/4 of a million review hours! IIRC, NuScale said they spent about $500 million on getting it approved. This was the first modular design ever approved. This is really good news and the fact that none of the climate change bills fund the quick ramping up of testing and building this design means that people don't really want quick action on reducing CO2. [1]https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2105/ML21050A431.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2105/ML21050A431.pdf
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  How much of NRC regulations are based on 1980’s scaremongering and FUD, vs. real and material risks of Nuclear reactor designs? I suspect there is some malaise and misallocation of resources where we could benefit from very strict regulations where it really matters. Reminds me of the story of 3D printers where Stratasys had 80 patents expiring between 2005-2010 and as soon as that happened, 3D printers were all the rage. Sometimes, it’s not the fundamental physics, engineering or manufacturing issues; but purely artificial boundaries created by, in this case, IP regulation (patents).
  - njarboe 4y ago
    The next paragraph after the one quoted above gives some hope for reducing unneeded parts of the NRC review process: "While successful, the level of effort for reviewing the NuScale DCA may not be repeatable for future reviews. Significant resources were expended on issues with little bearing on the safety of the design, matters well beyond the purview of reasonable assurance of adequate protection. Several issues were left unresolved by Staff, which could have been avoided were the recommendations here in place. During the course of review, NuScale identified several overarching problems with the review process and review criteria that could yield significant efficiencies in the review of future applications, without impacting the effectiveness of NRC’s review." Refering to you 3D printer history, most technologies don't take off till the first round of patents expire. I think one reason tech makes such great strides during war time is that all war related patents are ignored or cross licensed to everyone else.
cudgy 4y ago
I’m looking forward to off-grid tiny reactors that can power a single home.
spywaregorilla 4y ago
It will be another win when it's on the grid and running

It will be a win when it's on the grid and running. Producing a design has never been a challenge for nuclear power, that's the easy part. The hard part has been building the designs.

linkdink 4y ago

That's exactly the problem this modular type is supposed to address. > small modular reactors (SMRs) are designed to be small enough to build in a factory before being shipped

epistasis 4y ago
Right, but that's why we it won't be a win until it's generating. We don't know that this manufacturing method will work out better than prior attempts. The AP1000, was supposed to address construction problems by being able to ship in large parts already constructed. But that failed so miserably that SMRs-long ignored because they weren't thought to be economically efficient-became the last ditch effort to build nuclear. And the AP1000 failed because of all the on-site mismanagement of things as simple as concrete pours. SMRs are unproven in at least two regards: 1) ability to manufacture in a factory economically, and 2) ability to construct all the on-site infrastructure for the SMR to generate the electricity.
- Accujack 4y ago
  >We don't know that this manufacturing method will work out better than prior attempts. There are never certainties in anything except in hindsight. Most people with expertise who have reviewed SMR designs (and there are many) believe there's a high probability of the central manufacturing concept being able to work. Factories are a very well known concept at this point.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Renewable builds typically come in within 10% of the contracted cost. You get certainty by installing things in very large quantities, with rapid cycle time.
- naasking 4y ago
  > ability to construct all the on-site infrastructure for the SMR to generate the electricity. I'm a little confused by this, as all existing reactor designs required both the reactor and their infrastructure to be built on-site. I'm not sure why you think it would be an open question to just do the infrastructure.
- linkdink 4y ago
  I see what you mean now. The unknown of if it will be successful. Not the existence of the intent. You wrote it, I just misunderstood it.

njarboe 4y ago

The design might not not be hard but getting it approved is a real pain. "NuScale completed the first NRC review of an advanced reactor application, and overall the NuScale DCA review was a success. Staff completed review of the first small modular reactor design in 41 months following docketing of the application. The review was thorough; it involved over a quarter million review hours, about two million pages of documentation made available for review or audit, and about 100 gigabytes of test data." [1] 1/4 of a million review hours! IIRC, NuScale said they spent about $500 million on getting it approved. This was the first modular design ever approved. This is really good news and the fact that none of the climate change bills fund the quick ramping up of testing and building this design means that people don't really want quick action on reducing CO2. [1]https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2105/ML21050A431.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2105/ML21050A431.pdf

systemvoltage 4y ago
How much of NRC regulations are based on 1980’s scaremongering and FUD, vs. real and material risks of Nuclear reactor designs? I suspect there is some malaise and misallocation of resources where we could benefit from very strict regulations where it really matters. Reminds me of the story of 3D printers where Stratasys had 80 patents expiring between 2005-2010 and as soon as that happened, 3D printers were all the rage. Sometimes, it’s not the fundamental physics, engineering or manufacturing issues; but purely artificial boundaries created by, in this case, IP regulation (patents).
- njarboe 4y ago
  The next paragraph after the one quoted above gives some hope for reducing unneeded parts of the NRC review process: "While successful, the level of effort for reviewing the NuScale DCA may not be repeatable for future reviews. Significant resources were expended on issues with little bearing on the safety of the design, matters well beyond the purview of reasonable assurance of adequate protection. Several issues were left unresolved by Staff, which could have been avoided were the recommendations here in place. During the course of review, NuScale identified several overarching problems with the review process and review criteria that could yield significant efficiencies in the review of future applications, without impacting the effectiveness of NRC’s review." Refering to you 3D printer history, most technologies don't take off till the first round of patents expire. I think one reason tech makes such great strides during war time is that all war related patents are ignored or cross licensed to everyone else.

cudgy 4y ago

I’m looking forward to off-grid tiny reactors that can power a single home.

spywaregorilla 4y ago

It will be another win when it's on the grid and running