2 ms·

This is a well-written series (Parts 1 and 2 are linked in this article). This last part makes comparisons to the reactors designed and used by the US Navy. If

by jmyeet 4y ago

This is a well-written series (Parts 1 and 2 are linked in this article). This last part makes comparisons to the reactors designed and used by the US Navy. If you read through all of this the message I got was that size is the enemy. In one part it notes that a 100MWe core meltdown could likely be contained by the vessel but a 1000MWe reactor meltdown likely wouldn't. This concern is part of why there are ever stricter requirements on civilian reactors. So you have opposing forces: bigger reactors produce more power and scale better. Smaller reactors are safer and easier and cheaper to build. Smaller reactors probably means more of them, each requiring separate planning permission, design approval and so on. It also probably means people living closer to the reactor, which many would and do oppose. This series makes a good case for regulation being a significant cost component but it doesn't really make the case (nor does it try to) that said regulation is overly onerous or otherwise unnecessary. A lot of regulation came about because of our experience with nuclear reactors, accidents and near-accidents and the bigger failur emodes of the larger reactors power supplies would likely want to build.

jjk166 4y ago
> Smaller reactors probably means more of them, each requiring separate planning permission, design approval and so on. It also probably means people living closer to the reactor, which many would and do oppose. The major selling point for smaller reactors is that you can make a mass produced design that doesn't need separate planning, permission, and design approval every time. You can still have large power plants to get the benefits of scale, you just put more of these small units together at the same site. In fact you get some bonuses as you can shut down some reactors for maintenance while still producing power. Indeed most nuclear power plants already have multiple cores for exactly this reason, but typically its 2-6 rather than 20-60 and thus they are still pretty big.
brutusborn 4y ago
I think the point is more that the past cost overrund are due to _changing_ regulation, not necessarily the regulation themselves. It's like a software client changes requirements a year into a 2 year project and suddenly you need to rearchitect the whole thing, essentially starting again. Following regulations is costly, but following changing regulations throughout a project lifecycle is _very expensive_.

by jmyeet 4y ago

jjk166 4y ago

> Smaller reactors probably means more of them, each requiring separate planning permission, design approval and so on. It also probably means people living closer to the reactor, which many would and do oppose. The major selling point for smaller reactors is that you can make a mass produced design that doesn't need separate planning, permission, and design approval every time. You can still have large power plants to get the benefits of scale, you just put more of these small units together at the same site. In fact you get some bonuses as you can shut down some reactors for maintenance while still producing power. Indeed most nuclear power plants already have multiple cores for exactly this reason, but typically its 2-6 rather than 20-60 and thus they are still pretty big.

brutusborn 4y ago

I think the point is more that the past cost overrund are due to _changing_ regulation, not necessarily the regulation themselves. It's like a software client changes requirements a year into a 2 year project and suddenly you need to rearchitect the whole thing, essentially starting again. Following regulations is costly, but following changing regulations throughout a project lifecycle is _very expensive_.