4 ms·

But solar did not get cheap overnight by some miracle. It got cheap because people iterated on it. Many decades. Many decades ago people stopped iterating on n

But solar did not get cheap overnight by some miracle. It got cheap because people iterated on it. Many decades. Many decades ago people stopped iterating on nuclear. There is no law of nature that says nuclear can't get cheaper by a factor of 100. It's just technology. As for safety, I personally trust the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). If they say something it's safe, I'll take them at their word. There's no need for any pinky promise on the side of the industry. If you can find any source that claims the NRC are lax, I'd like to see that. Everywhere I looked I saw the opposite complaint, that they are unreasonably strict. I'm personally ok with them being too conservative. I looked at the documents related to the safety approval of NuScale's SMR [1], and they seem competent to me. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/licensing-activities/nuscale/documents.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/licensing-acti...

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Many decades ago people stopped iterating on nuclear. There is no law of nature that says nuclear can't get cheaper by a factor of 100. It's just technology. This is patently untrue, countless billions have been spent on molten salt and molten sodium reactors. Almost as much has been spent on various breeder reactors that don't work or have never been used for breeding like Superphenix, IFR and the BN program as was spent on the entire PV revolution (except PV as actually generated some power with their subsidies unlike breeder programs). More time and money spent on fission just reveals more ways it is dangerous and reveals previously hidden costs of keeping them safe. If you want an undeveloped technology that will improve with investment go put a single nuclear reactor's worth of money into tidal.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  Superphenix was closed more than 30 years ago. In the West there was virtually zero investment in advanced nuclear power reactors in these 3 decades. But China did invest. It hooked up a high temperature gas cooled reactor to the grid one year ago [1]. It is not talked about a lot, but this is leapfrogging the West by 20 years. [1] https://www.powermag.com/china-starts-up-first-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor/ https://www.powermag.com/china-starts-up-first-fourth-genera...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    What's the advantage? It's higher burnup and higher efficiency, but the enrichment % more than cancels that out. Is it just that there's no containment vessel?
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      Higher burnup, higher efficiency, and higher enrichment means less waste. Much less waste. Higher enrichment is the opposite of "cancels that out". Maybe you are thinking in terms of cost, but the cost of enrichment is negligible compared to the energy produced. In terms of waste, there will be at least 4 times less waste per unit of energy produced (thermal energy is about twice as high as for a PWR reactor and the enrichment is also about twice as high). Another advantage is the fact this is a Small Modular Reactor. China wants to build 18 by the end of the decade. That is iteration. That's how you drive the cost down. SpaceX is said to build one Raptor per day. Even without reusable boosters, just this pace of iteration means their workers and processes became much more efficient at building the engines. With a bit of googling around you can find the cost of a Raptor is 5-10 times lower than the cost of comparable engines, per unit of thrust. It is very likely this cost advantage will only increase going forward.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        > Higher burnup, higher efficiency, and higher enrichment means less waste. Much less waste. No it doesn't. The really bad waste (because it outmasses the rest by four orders of magnitude) is in a tailings pond that will be 'remediated' by pulling a plastic sheet over it in Namibia, or being pumped into the ground water in Kazakhstan, or spilled onto the farm land in Navajo. Higher enrichment means more of that. Reducing high grade waste by 20% at the cost of doubling that seems like a step backwards. Don't you keep saying the amount of high grade waste is completely insignificant? How would reducing something completely insignificant help? It'd be like touting a new solar panel using half the boron dopant reducing it to a microgram at the expense of using 10x as much silver as a nuclear plant rather than 5x. > Another advantage is the fact this is a Small Modular Reactor. China wants to build 18 by the end of the decade. That is iteration. That's how you drive the cost down. How much does fabricating the microspheres and then the pebbles cost? How much does de-fabricating them to achieve 'less waste' cost? I seem to have found the actual upside. It's designed to be a drop in replacement on a coal generator. This makes sense and reduces radioactive waste slightly (or rather puts it in the ground in Niger rather than the air in china).

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Many decades ago people stopped iterating on nuclear. There is no law of nature that says nuclear can't get cheaper by a factor of 100. It's just technology. This is patently untrue, countless billions have been spent on molten salt and molten sodium reactors. Almost as much has been spent on various breeder reactors that don't work or have never been used for breeding like Superphenix, IFR and the BN program as was spent on the entire PV revolution (except PV as actually generated some power with their subsidies unlike breeder programs). More time and money spent on fission just reveals more ways it is dangerous and reveals previously hidden costs of keeping them safe. If you want an undeveloped technology that will improve with investment go put a single nuclear reactor's worth of money into tidal.

credit_guy 4y ago
Superphenix was closed more than 30 years ago. In the West there was virtually zero investment in advanced nuclear power reactors in these 3 decades. But China did invest. It hooked up a high temperature gas cooled reactor to the grid one year ago [1]. It is not talked about a lot, but this is leapfrogging the West by 20 years. [1] https://www.powermag.com/china-starts-up-first-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor/ https://www.powermag.com/china-starts-up-first-fourth-genera...
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  What's the advantage? It's higher burnup and higher efficiency, but the enrichment % more than cancels that out. Is it just that there's no containment vessel?
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    Higher burnup, higher efficiency, and higher enrichment means less waste. Much less waste. Higher enrichment is the opposite of "cancels that out". Maybe you are thinking in terms of cost, but the cost of enrichment is negligible compared to the energy produced. In terms of waste, there will be at least 4 times less waste per unit of energy produced (thermal energy is about twice as high as for a PWR reactor and the enrichment is also about twice as high). Another advantage is the fact this is a Small Modular Reactor. China wants to build 18 by the end of the decade. That is iteration. That's how you drive the cost down. SpaceX is said to build one Raptor per day. Even without reusable boosters, just this pace of iteration means their workers and processes became much more efficient at building the engines. With a bit of googling around you can find the cost of a Raptor is 5-10 times lower than the cost of comparable engines, per unit of thrust. It is very likely this cost advantage will only increase going forward.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > Higher burnup, higher efficiency, and higher enrichment means less waste. Much less waste. No it doesn't. The really bad waste (because it outmasses the rest by four orders of magnitude) is in a tailings pond that will be 'remediated' by pulling a plastic sheet over it in Namibia, or being pumped into the ground water in Kazakhstan, or spilled onto the farm land in Navajo. Higher enrichment means more of that. Reducing high grade waste by 20% at the cost of doubling that seems like a step backwards. Don't you keep saying the amount of high grade waste is completely insignificant? How would reducing something completely insignificant help? It'd be like touting a new solar panel using half the boron dopant reducing it to a microgram at the expense of using 10x as much silver as a nuclear plant rather than 5x. > Another advantage is the fact this is a Small Modular Reactor. China wants to build 18 by the end of the decade. That is iteration. That's how you drive the cost down. How much does fabricating the microspheres and then the pebbles cost? How much does de-fabricating them to achieve 'less waste' cost? I seem to have found the actual upside. It's designed to be a drop in replacement on a coal generator. This makes sense and reduces radioactive waste slightly (or rather puts it in the ground in Niger rather than the air in china).