4 ms·

Pebble bed reactors with no containment building retrofitted on existing thermal plants might compete if we're willing to accept the gradually growing continuou

Pebble bed reactors with no containment building retrofitted on existing thermal plants might compete if we're willing to accept the gradually growing continuous stream of fission products that will start leaking when it turns out silicon carbide isn't actually invincible.

dale_glass 4y ago
How? Wind is a generator with some blades attached, on a stick. Nuclear is a generator with a nuclear reactor feeding it. Exactly how do you expect "nuclear reactor" to be cheaper than "blades + stick"?
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The wind turbine is some very large blades on a very large stick turning a generator that is under much higher loads in the wrong direction sitting on top of a big slab or buoy of concrete or steel. A pebble bed reactor is basically just a ball pit full of very expensive balls that will "get cheaper with scale bro we swear" that gets hot and needs stirring from time to time. The steam generator part, even if you're not using one that already exists, is about the same cost and upkeep as a wind turbine as the added maintenance from the temperature and steam is roughly offset by the smaller size. So it comes down to whether the ball pit once it gets all the indirect and hidden subsidies that nuclear gets can be about the same price again, then the slightly higher load factor makes up the difference. My money is on we get a few shoved down our throats whether we like it or not at prices about comparable with wind (lower up front but more expensive once it's obvious that O&M is 5x the estimate), then the IAEA and NRC will be all shocked pikachu when they start dispersing a not-immediately-provably-fatal amount of fission products as if it's a surprise and not inevitable. Then the limits will be raised during some energy crisis pointing to the failure of wind after a large storm knocks out a bunch of power lines and one wind turbine.
panick21_ 4y ago
Not sure why you are mention Pebble bed reactors. They are just one of many potential reactor types. And there are also a whole lot of different potential designs for a pebble bed reactor. Not building a containment building would never happen, and if you have small high power density reactor, the containment building is not actually the expensive part. This is an example of a modern pebble bed reactor: https://kairospower.com/technology/ https://kairospower.com/technology/ Building containment about a reactor like that isn't expensive. Containment is expensive if you have to build it around a gigantic PWR reactor with steam heat exchangers.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  You mean the people pushing HTGR pebble bed SMRs as drop in replacements for a coal boiler with no construction are being unrealistic? Say it ain't so. Also I'll believe the inexpensive molten salt cooled reactor when I see one.

dale_glass 4y ago

How? Wind is a generator with some blades attached, on a stick. Nuclear is a generator with a nuclear reactor feeding it. Exactly how do you expect "nuclear reactor" to be cheaper than "blades + stick"?

Schroedingersat 4y ago
The wind turbine is some very large blades on a very large stick turning a generator that is under much higher loads in the wrong direction sitting on top of a big slab or buoy of concrete or steel. A pebble bed reactor is basically just a ball pit full of very expensive balls that will "get cheaper with scale bro we swear" that gets hot and needs stirring from time to time. The steam generator part, even if you're not using one that already exists, is about the same cost and upkeep as a wind turbine as the added maintenance from the temperature and steam is roughly offset by the smaller size. So it comes down to whether the ball pit once it gets all the indirect and hidden subsidies that nuclear gets can be about the same price again, then the slightly higher load factor makes up the difference. My money is on we get a few shoved down our throats whether we like it or not at prices about comparable with wind (lower up front but more expensive once it's obvious that O&M is 5x the estimate), then the IAEA and NRC will be all shocked pikachu when they start dispersing a not-immediately-provably-fatal amount of fission products as if it's a surprise and not inevitable. Then the limits will be raised during some energy crisis pointing to the failure of wind after a large storm knocks out a bunch of power lines and one wind turbine.

panick21_ 4y ago

Not sure why you are mention Pebble bed reactors. They are just one of many potential reactor types. And there are also a whole lot of different potential designs for a pebble bed reactor. Not building a containment building would never happen, and if you have small high power density reactor, the containment building is not actually the expensive part. This is an example of a modern pebble bed reactor: https://kairospower.com/technology/ https://kairospower.com/technology/ Building containment about a reactor like that isn't expensive. Containment is expensive if you have to build it around a gigantic PWR reactor with steam heat exchangers.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
You mean the people pushing HTGR pebble bed SMRs as drop in replacements for a coal boiler with no construction are being unrealistic? Say it ain't so. Also I'll believe the inexpensive molten salt cooled reactor when I see one.