68 ms·
Vogtle Unit 3 starts nuclear fuel load
- sho_hn 4y agoCan someone in the know summarize the improvements in this plant vs. the older crop? From the POV of "good ideas that made it to production", not vs. "what could be if only". What battles did these engineers pick and win?
- chomp 4y agoThese have more passive controls that don't require active management, and can go a few days with almost no pumps or anything running. They also have some improvements that avoid Fukushima-like events, with a core catcher that can catch and cool a molten core.
- smileysteve 4y ago> A notable improvement of Gen III+ systems over second-generation designs is the incorporation in some designs of passive safety features that do not require active controls or operator intervention but instead rely on gravity or natural convection to mitigate the impact of abnormal events. > Generation III+ reactors incorporate extra safety features to avoid the kind of disaster suffered at Fukushima in 2011. Generation III+ designs, passive safety, also known as passive cooling, requires no sustained operator action or electronic feedback to shut down the plant safely in the event of an emergency. Many of the Generation III+ nuclear reactors have a core catcher. If the fuel cladding and reactor vessel systems and associated piping become molten, corium will fall into a core catcher which holds the molten material and has the ability to cool it. This, in turn protects the final barrier, the containment building. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Developments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Develop...
- moffkalast 4y agoThe ahem warp core ejection system.
- themaninthedark 4y agoThat's what Chernobyl had!
- ethbr0 4y agoIn Soviet Russia, reactor core ejects building! (Couldn't resist. Accept downvotes. I'm sorry)
- Manuel_D 4y agoThe key innovation is ejecting the core downward into a contained vessel, instead of upward into the sky (to be pedantic, it was the lid of the chernobyl reactor that shot upward, the core subsequently started to burn).
- robotnikman 4y ago>Many of the Generation III+ nuclear reactors have a core catcher. If the fuel cladding and reactor vessel systems and associated piping become molten, corium will fall into a core catcher which holds the molten material and has the ability to cool it. Wow, that's actually pretty cool
- p1mrx 4y agoI don't think it's true for the AP1000: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/47/078/47078912.pdf https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/... "Integrity of the Reactor Vessel is protected by surrounding it with water in the event of a threat of core melting, and therefore no core catcher is required" In other words "we don't need a core catcher because we promise to keep refilling the boiled-off water after a blackout." There are other reactor designs that can safely shut down without any human action.
- wahern 4y agoAccording to this, https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1117/ML11171A340.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1117/ML11171A340.pdf, the two design alternatives are "dry cavity" (aka "core catcher") and "wet cavity". But the dry/wet distinction is a little misleading as according to this paper, https://www.kns.org/files/pre_paper/37/17S-854%EC%9D%B4%EC%A0%95%EC%9E%ACI.pdf https://www.kns.org/files/pre_paper/37/17S-854%EC%9D%B4%EC%A..., both alternatives require cooling water. The dry cavity design relies on indirect cooling--the water contacts the sacrificial layer ("catcher")--whereas in the wet cavity design the water directly contacts the core material, which has still effectively been "caught" in the cavity beneath the reactor vessel. I'm not sure what all the pros and cons are for each approach, except that the wet cavity design has a higher risk of a steam explosion because of the direct water contact. But this seems to be addressed by containment structures designed for higher pressures. EDIT: The succinct comparison of each approach is in the introduction to the second paper: "Some plants adopted the 'dry cavity' to enhance the spreading of the core melt on the cavity floor as well as to remove the steam explosion risk, while other plants use pre-flooding strategy to make the 'wet cavity' in order to enhance the coolability after RPV failure or to reduce the RPV failure probability."
- HPsquared 4y agoIt's an AP1000 PWR. Wikipedia has a summary of the design features: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#Design_specifications https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#Design_specifications
- advisedwang 4y agoThe biggest thing the AP1000 does is production scale with passive safety. With zero power and no operator intervention it can shut down a reactor and keep it cool for long enough not to melt down.
- sidewndr46 4y agoIs there a way an operator can command the operator into a failure mode?
- advisedwang 4y agoBy failure I assume you mean catestrophic disaster. The passive safety doesn't mean no failures, it just limits the damage done by them. The reactor is probably wrecked if the safety measures have to kick in. But yes, if an operator (or more likely a whole shift of operators) was malicious, they probably could defeat the safety systems. The main innovation is basically just a huge tank of water that can drain into the reactor by gravity, so if you emptied this tank then the safety system is defeated. They could also just take a fuel rod, break it apart and dump it into a schools water tank. You can't really create a system that defends against murderous intent.
- sidewndr46 4y agoOK good point, but I'm guessing no one would be crazy enough to pick up a fuel rod and try and break it. I think you'd actually get burnt just from handling it. In any case I was actually thinking about a foolish operator, not a malicious one.
- advisedwang 4y agoHonestly only time will tell just how effective the passive safety here is. Even with the previous generation of reactors it takes multiple failures all at once for an accident to happen, so who's to say one day we're not going to see some new unforseen issue happening just at the wrong time. In fact this kind of touches on why some folks are looking at more radical changes. There are thorium reactor designs which require active, maintained energy to become critical at all. A melted block of thorium is sub-critical! None of these systems are any where near productionizable though. Overall, remember this isn't the first time someone thought they finally "cracked" safety. This is really about us getting more experience and refining our practices over time, not some "now nuclear is totally safe" threshold. https://how.complexsystems.fail/ https://how.complexsystems.fail/ was on hacker news a while back, you might like to read it to get more of a feel for how the progress of nuclear safety really happens.
- DisjointedHunt 4y agoFrom the manufacturer, Westinghouse, so please take with a critical look: Key quote from the second link: "The key feature of the AP1000 plant is the replacement of complex redundant safety systems that are powered with AC power with passive safety methods such as gravity and heat transfer by conduction, convection and radiation..... .....The AP1000 plant does not require AC electric power to achieve safe shutdown nor to establish and maintain, for an extended period of time, safe shutdown mode while removing decay heat from the nuclear fuel. By removing the reliance on AC power, you solve the paradox in which you need AC power to remove decay heat. With the AP1000 plant design, you don’t need AC power. You just need the laws of physics and stored energy from DC batteries, compressed gases and gravity to remove decay heat, and that is what achieves the simplicity and robustness." Safety features overview page: https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/ap1000-pwr/safety https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/ap1000-pw... Interviews with engineers for a salesy focused magazine (Not mobile friendly): https://digitaleditions.nuclearplantjournal.com/JA18/22/ https://digitaleditions.nuclearplantjournal.com/JA18/22/ Product overview page: https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/ap1000-pwr https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/ap1000-pw...
- tomatotomato37 4y agoAlso adding onto this, what non-safety improvements were made? As I understand the PWR is a generally crap & outdated design that tends to suck up the benefits of nuclear in it's lackluster reliability and efficiency
- i_am_proteus 4y agoThis is not correct. PWRs are slightly less efficient than BWRs, but their safety systems are much more straightforward due to having an entirely non-nuclear secondary. PWR turbine halls do not need containment, whereas BWRs' do.
- apendleton 4y agoI suspect that this person wasn't talking about PWRs vs. BWRs, but rather, PWRs vs more-exotic gen-IV-ish designs (molten salt cooling, gaseous helium cooling, etc. etc.).
- mandevil 4y agoWhat is the biggest Gen-IV design ever built, in MW terms? Is it the 200MW Pebble Bed reactors in China that just started powering lights at the very end of last year? Given how difficult it has been to build the much more well-understood PWR reactors, I can understand the skepticism for trying to build a Gen-IV design.
- apendleton 4y agoYeah, there are steep hurdles, but the hope eventually with at least some of the smaller gen IV designs is that a design can be approved once along with any requirements for siting, etc., and that then at each site where they're to be installed, installers will only need to show that the site meets the already-approved siting requirements rather than starting a whole new process from scratch, which should seems like it at least has the potential to make the regulatory burden more sane. The NRC is already working on a revised approval process that aims at this goal, and is set to be ready in 2024. Who knows if it'll pan out, but there's at least the possibility of change.
- patientplatypus 4y ago
- sbierwagen 4y agoThe first permit for the new units was applied for in August 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Units_3_and_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... A mere sixteen years from NRC application to coming online.
- elFarto 4y agoThe B1M Youtube channel did a video[1] featuring this plant the other day which goes into some of the delays they had. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyQMNVSxbNo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyQMNVSxbNo
- aliqot 4y agoI'd rather the process not be rushed. These things are supposed to run a very long time, let's get it right.
- seventytwo 4y agoTrue… but the world keeps moving regardless. The growing demand doesn’t stop once the permit is issued, so if we can’t build these fast enough to keep up, other potentially more polluting forms of energy will fill the void.
- rrss 4y agoI think the HN title is missing a “ … in the US” qualifier - looks like China has had several of these same model running for several years.
- p1mrx 4y agoYeah, here's the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Lists_of_Generation_III+_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Lists_o...
- dang 4y agoSubmitted title was "The first Gen III+ Nuclear plant begins fuel loading". We've changed it to what the article says. Submitters: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lucb1e 4y agoThe original title was more descriptive, fwiw. The current one means nobody has any idea what makes this fuel loading newsworthy, unless they already know and then they don't need to read about it on HN
- dang 4y agoIf a submitter (or anyone) wants to say what they think is important about an article, that's fine, but they should do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then their view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... The title is not the place to do this; on HN, being the submitter of an article doesn't confer any special right to frame the topic for everyone else. That's super important, because titles are overwhelmingly the dominant influence on discussion.
- 4y ago
- trasz 4y agoThe title is misleading, the actual first one has been operating commercially since 2018 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station). There are another couple of them in operation.
- UncleOxidant 4y agoYeah, first in the US but not in the world.
- kelnos 4y agoIt's also notable that it took less than a year after agreeing on a contract for the Chinese to break ground on the Sanmen plant, while Vogtle sat around for 7 years waiting on US regulatory approval. The pair of reactors at Sanmen also only cost CNY 50.1B (just under US$7B) to build, while it seems costs at Vogtle are at $30B and counting. (At least if the figures on their respective Wikipedia pages are accurate.)
- kelnos 4y agoDid a little more reading on Wikipedia, and found this bit of "oof"[0]: > Cost overruns at Vogtle and the cancellation of Summer [Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina] led to Westinghouse's bankruptcy in 2017. This raises a somewhat-scary question: in this case, Westinghouse's bankrupt remains were bought out by a private equity firm, and they presumably took on Westinghouse's obligations toward in-progress nuclear plant construction, but... what if that hadn't been the case? What if Westinghouse had just completely failed and ceased operations? Who would support the remainder of projects like Vogtle 3 & 4, and ongoing maintenance for the next however-many decades? I guess a company in a heavily-regulated sector like this must have some sort of succession plan, but it's not clear to me how this would work, in the case of e.g. the company going bankrupt, and all the staff with institutional knowledge about a reactor design dispersing to various other companies. Hell, that could have even happened in Westinghouse's case. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
- bombcar 4y agoIf nobody wants take it over, the government steps in and tries to find a buyer (basically read: promises to subsidize someone who will take it on hand). If that fails, the government sometimes will setup its own company to take it in hand either at the state or federal level (this would almost certainly be federal). Failing that, the projects would cease.
- kelnos 4y agoAh, good to know there are a couple layers of fallbacks. I guess there's still one failure mode: project is completed and plant is running, and then the manufacturer goes out of business. I guess in that case the government would have to act as a backstop no matter what, and worst-case they would just operate until the plant could be decommissioned.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> What if Westinghouse had just completely failed and ceased operations? Who would support the remainder of projects like Vogtle 3 & 4, and ongoing maintenance for the next however-many decades? For maintaining and decommissioning built plants, there are reserve and bonding requirements [1]. For new developments, that's a risk inherent to every construction project. Some hold that risk on their books, others sell it to an insurer. (One of the many reasons fuel is loaded last.) [1] https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part030/part030-0035.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part030/p...
- jakswa 4y agocombined with facebook datacenters in Georgia having energy-sourcing requirements, I'm hoping the Georgia grid is set to get a lot cleaner soon https://www.siliconranch.com/portfolio-item/snipesville-ii-solar-farm/ https://www.siliconranch.com/portfolio-item/snipesville-ii-s...
- kelnos 4y agoNice to see new nuclear generation go online. Given that it'll be quite a long time (if ever) that we can completely run off renewables + battery storage, I think nuclear is a great fit to fill that gap. It's just a shame that most of the US and Europe (and others?) are so hell-bent against nuclear power.
- DisjointedHunt 4y agoCheap access to plentiful energy has been one of the main drivers of innovation for all of human history. It is very surprising in that context that Governments haven't pushed harder to secure their energy security more aggressively.
- kelnos 4y agoAgreed; the mess with Russia has revealed how negligent many European countries have been in ensuring the stability of their energy sources.
- naasking 4y ago> It is very surprising in that context that Governments haven't pushed harder to secure their energy security more aggressively. Some governments have, to the tune of millions of dead people in the middle east. Sometimes aggression is misdirected.
- proc0 4y agoWe need more of these. The path to 100% green energy without coercing people and making decisions that could backfire, is to upgrade the energy grid to the point that electricity is dirt cheap. At that point people will want to buy electric vehicles because it will make more sense.
- DisjointedHunt 4y agoLooking at the F150 lightning convincing people who typically might fall in a cohort skeptical of EVs is eye opening. People will happily buy EVs if it fills the gap their present vehicles do and proponents of EVs will do well to remember that not everyone leads the same lifestyle, living in dense cities with lots of highway driving. I'm very hopeful for the future seeing the swarm of Nuclear startups pushing the boundaries in the United States. It feels like we're in ~2004 of the space startup phase with Nuclear tech startups.
- dylan604 4y ago>People will happily buy EVs if it fills the gap their present vehicles do and proponents of EVs will do well to remember that not everyone leads the same lifestyle, living in dense cities with lots of highway driving. Yes, but... The dense cities are where the pollution is, and is low hanging fruit. Converting the rural areas with much less dense population is not achieving much. So it makes sense to target those dense population centers first.
- tonmoy 4y agoDo you have any concrete data for that? Just because urban areas are denser doesn’t mean more number of people let alone it may not be more overall miles travelled
- dylan604 4y agoNothing more than my personal experience of living in the boonies for ~20 years then moving to the "big city" for the remaining ~25 years, reading information online, looking at pollution maps, etc. Edit: here's an example of online pollution maps: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/10/climate/driving-emissions-map.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/10/climate/drivi...
- dylan604 4y ago"During fuel load, nuclear technicians and operators from Westinghouse and Southern Nuclear are scheduled to safely transfer 157 fuel assemblies one-by-one from the Unit 3 spent fuel pool to the Unit 3 reactor core in the coming days. " Are they recycling fuel in this reactor, or were they just using the spent fuel pool to store the new fuel while waiting approval for install?
- _n_b_ 4y agoThe latter. Fresh fuel moves into the reactor refueling pool (the area flooded around the reactor during refueling operations) via a transfer canal from the spent fuel pool.
- birdyrooster 4y agoI like how much this resembles a GDI power plant in Command and Conquer
- unglaublich 4y agoI love how nuclear is like: 20% is the time is spent on getting something working, the remaining 80% of the time is spent on getting it safe.
- breck 4y agoThis is awesome but is there a way to show things to scale? Currently it scales up the satellites many many OOM so it gives a false impression of crowding.
- AceJohnny2 4y agoSounds like you meant to comment on the LEO Visualization post [1], not this nuclear power plant post. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205563 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205563
- breck 4y agoLol. Yes that's the one I meant to comment on. Must have been user error. Thanks! And someone else made the same point I made (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33209837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33209837), so I don't even need to repost. Thanks!
- skrbjc 4y agoI love how the disclaimer is longer than the article.
- remorses 4y agoWood -> Coal -> Oil/Gas -> Uranium This is the most straightforward way to progress energy generation, increase fuel energy density Renewable energy will find its place after batteries decrease 10x in price
- algoatecorn 4y agoBe careful with physics-backed statements! It seems many in this thread don't appreciate the energy density requirements of modern baseload. Don't want to crush their solarpunk dreams.
- ben_w 4y agoEnergy density is important for transport, I don't see how current limitations in that can be important for base-load. Cost, sure, but LiIon is already on par with nuclear in that regard despite not being the cheapest storage.
- algoatecorn 4y agoEnergy density is important for storage, which transport falls under.
- ben_w 4y agoContext of this thread is nuclear, which isn't useful for most forms of transport.
- algoatecorn 4y agoAren't you the one that brought up transportation? This is the most pedantic, exhausting thread I've ever seen on HN. So many surface level opinions that I feel like I'm on reddit
- ben_w 4y ago
- ryan93 4y agoThe national debt has gone up like 20 trillion in my life. Just ten percent of that could build 133 ap1000 reactors. probably more if some parts were mass produced and the talented welders got experience on multiple projects.
- pfdietz 4y agoThat sort of thinking is why the national debt is where it is.
- ThinkBeat 4y agoIt says: "These units are important to building the future of energy and will serve as clean, emission-free sources of energy for Georgians for the next 60 to 80 years." Do nuclear power plants have an expected lifetime of 60 to 80 years? Then must be shut down, with all the radioactive problems that present and a new one must be built? That seems like a short time to make good on the investment of building it. (from an environmental standpoint, based on the lack of reuse of the real estate it was / is sitting on top of)
- i_am_proteus 4y agoRealistically, the site can be re-used for another power plant. Or cleaned up and used for something else. It's not particularly different from any other industrial activity that deals with hazardous materials.
- nicoburns 4y ago> Realistically, the site can be re-used for another power plant. Or cleaned up and used for something else. Re-used for another power plant, sure. But cleaned up and used for something else? Has that even been done once?
- i_am_proteus 4y agoShippingport, although much of the site was used for a new nuclear plant because of all of the shared infrastructure. Yankee Rowe is largely clean empty land, with a small storage site for dry fuel casks. It doesn't happen much because it's economically smarter to keep operating a plant or replace it with another plant given that the site is already prepared for a nuclear power station.
- ensignavenger 4y agoI believe "these units" refer only to the nuclear reactors, not to the plant as a whole. The plant will likely need ongoing replacements, and more, newer reactors can be added over time. The same plant/real estate could serve as a power plant for many times that amount of time. It is also quite feasible to move the spent fuel and any other radioactive material to another location... there are politics involved, but the physics are pretty straight forward.
- elihu 4y ago> Once operating, the two new units, which will be clean energy sources that produce zero air pollution, are expected to power more than 500,000 homes and businesses. I wondered how much actual power that was. More context is on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... The site has two nuclear reactors already, in use since the 80's. 3 and 4 are each 1250 MWe reactors. By way of comparison, the Zaporizhzhia NPP (largest in Europe) has 6 950 MWe reactors. (Edit: that's six 960 MWe reactors, not 6,950 MWe reactors.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Pla...
- WinstonSmith84 4y ago> Zaporizhzhia NPP (largest in Europe) has 6 950 MWe reactors. It's not 6950, but 5700. And 5700 is the total output (950x6 reactors). 1250 is among the most powerful reactor in the world. I think the most powerful is the EPR (French tech), but this has been delayed, and delayed, and ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)
- aaronblohowiak 4y ago>It's not 6950, but 5700. this is what the OP is saying, there are six 950 MWe reactors. might be a cultural difference on how we'd read "6 950MWe"
- FPGAhacker 4y agoI read it as 6950 too. Maybe spell out 6 or use something as a separator (- or x or *) maybe.
- fire 4y agolol I'm not sure where I learned it but long ago I was taught to write out numbers that are ten or less, and this is probably the first time I've seen a case where it would have actually prevented confusion
- Ziggy_Zaggy 4y agoFor any parties who seek to gain a more thorough understanding of why nuclear power solves many (if not all) of today's power needs here's a resource that exlores mostly the benefits. Freakonics podcast E516 (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/nuclear-power-isnt-perfect-is-it-good-enough/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/nuclear-power-isnt-perfect-...) Also, there was a paper written by a NYC analyst firm from approximately 5 years ago that spends significant time crunching the numbers between green vs nuclear solutions and demonstrates the pros/cons of both solutions. This paper provides a very good baseline to start the process of assessing costs of either solution relative to the amount of power output from a specific solution. Unforunately, I seem to have misplaced the link but I'm sure someone can dig it up. IEA (https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-electricity https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-electricity) Energy.gov (https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliab...) - Demonstrates the sheer capacity that nuclear has over other solutions. Spoiler alert - you might be pleasantly surprised. TL;DR - Nuclear offers significnantly more benefits than most ppl (in this thread) seem to realize after you actually consider the output capacities of the different solutions.