5 ms·

It's easy to get certified. Now they have to get a few hundred customers and local planning permissions...

foota 4y ago
Aren't these factory built? Seems like they could start building and then work out buyers if they're as promising as people make out.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  That's fine if you have a few 10s of billions to risk building products that might never be bought. There are 2 key issues here: you have to convince people these will work for a decade plus without issue despite being new AND you have to convince a large number of people (companies, municipalities etc) (>100 to make the factory viable and get the economies of scale) who actually have the cash to buy them. This is a key moat for a lot of tech: anyone could design a decent airliner. Can you convince enough airlines to order them to make it viable to mass manufacturer them, despite having no name or track record? Hence Boeing and Airbus remain the only games in town (and Airbus only got there with a lot of state assistance).
- Overtonwindow 4y ago
  I think what that person means is that to get this actually built, is likely going to take at least 5 to 10 years of regulatory and government action. On the local level. That's not counting anyone that might throw up roadblocks, such as environmental, and safety. That could easily extend this out another five or 10 years. If a company wanted to build this reactor today, speaking as a government bureaucrat, you are looking at least 10 years before they even break ground.
  - justahuman74 4y ago
    Are there places were they'd receive less regulation, such as on federal land or a military base?
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Federal land and less regulation are closer to antonyms than synonyms. Federal government contracts tend to be more involved than most. The military might consider a reactor like this for remote installations. I think they've had similar ideas/tests in the past. Not sure those ever panned out though.
      - knute 4y ago
        There were nuclear reactors run by the military in Antarctica, Greenland, and Alaska in the late 60s and early 70s, but they were all shut down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program#List_of_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program#Lis...
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        For reasons. Not regulation, and not hippies.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > going to take at least 5 to 10 years of regulatory and government action. On the local level On the coasts, sure. In Wyoming, Texas or New Mexico, much quicker [1]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/uemplystate.php https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/uemplystate.ph...
LinuxBender 4y ago
The first one is going into Lincoln County Wyoming in the city of Kemmerer. The city, county and state are all excited to get this reactor. They have the full support of the state. This state has a very diverse power production profile and provides power to most of the western states. The only people not so happy are the coal miners that are soon to be out of work. Kemmerer is also a coal mining city. Some of them have already started relocating.
- grecy 4y ago
  Interesting that Wyoming is talking about banning the sales of EVs [1] to protect the oil and gas industry. By that logic, a pesky nuclear reactor would surely also endanger their precious oil and gas profits.... [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3815311-wyoming-lawmakers-propose-ban-on-electric-vehicle-sales/ https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3815311-wyoming-law...
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    I think its just virtue-signalling for the people soon to be out of work as the coal mines are slowly shutting down, also mentioned here [1] That said the state has little demand for EV's so probably not too many people noticed. Probably also to give some confidence to the oil investors but I am not an investment expert. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395111
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    > a pesky nuclear reactor would surely also endanger their precious oil and gas profits (A), stop taking obviously unserious legislation seriously, it's a bad look. (B), they can comfortably rely on other jurisdictions having their heads shoved way too far up their own assholes that those other jurisdictions will not ever adopt nuclear, and will therefore remain reliable oil and gas customers.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  That's great. The issue is finding 99 more buyers so this can work at scale (the whole point of smr). Then you just have to deliver 100 reactors and do so on budget and without any defects. This is why I say the regulation is the EASY part. People were amazed when Tesla got off the ground because it was the first time anyone had succeeded at starting a new car maker in 100 years. This is the same idea, but much harder.
coder543 4y ago
> It's easy to get certified. Really? How many SMR designs have been certified in the last 20 years?
gene-h 4y ago
easy? They started the approval process in 2011 and the cost of approval was allegedly in the hundreds of millions of dollars. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power#Corporate_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power#Corporate_histor...

Aren't these factory built? Seems like they could start building and then work out buyers if they're as promising as people make out.

LatteLazy 4y ago
That's fine if you have a few 10s of billions to risk building products that might never be bought. There are 2 key issues here: you have to convince people these will work for a decade plus without issue despite being new AND you have to convince a large number of people (companies, municipalities etc) (>100 to make the factory viable and get the economies of scale) who actually have the cash to buy them. This is a key moat for a lot of tech: anyone could design a decent airliner. Can you convince enough airlines to order them to make it viable to mass manufacturer them, despite having no name or track record? Hence Boeing and Airbus remain the only games in town (and Airbus only got there with a lot of state assistance).
Overtonwindow 4y ago
I think what that person means is that to get this actually built, is likely going to take at least 5 to 10 years of regulatory and government action. On the local level. That's not counting anyone that might throw up roadblocks, such as environmental, and safety. That could easily extend this out another five or 10 years. If a company wanted to build this reactor today, speaking as a government bureaucrat, you are looking at least 10 years before they even break ground.
- justahuman74 4y ago
  Are there places were they'd receive less regulation, such as on federal land or a military base?
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Federal land and less regulation are closer to antonyms than synonyms. Federal government contracts tend to be more involved than most. The military might consider a reactor like this for remote installations. I think they've had similar ideas/tests in the past. Not sure those ever panned out though.
    - knute 4y ago
      There were nuclear reactors run by the military in Antarctica, Greenland, and Alaska in the late 60s and early 70s, but they were all shut down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program#List_of_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program#Lis...
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        For reasons. Not regulation, and not hippies.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > going to take at least 5 to 10 years of regulatory and government action. On the local level On the coasts, sure. In Wyoming, Texas or New Mexico, much quicker [1]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/uemplystate.php https://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/uemplystate.ph...

LinuxBender 4y ago

The first one is going into Lincoln County Wyoming in the city of Kemmerer. The city, county and state are all excited to get this reactor. They have the full support of the state. This state has a very diverse power production profile and provides power to most of the western states. The only people not so happy are the coal miners that are soon to be out of work. Kemmerer is also a coal mining city. Some of them have already started relocating.

grecy 4y ago
Interesting that Wyoming is talking about banning the sales of EVs [1] to protect the oil and gas industry. By that logic, a pesky nuclear reactor would surely also endanger their precious oil and gas profits.... [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3815311-wyoming-lawmakers-propose-ban-on-electric-vehicle-sales/ https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3815311-wyoming-law...
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  I think its just virtue-signalling for the people soon to be out of work as the coal mines are slowly shutting down, also mentioned here [1] That said the state has little demand for EV's so probably not too many people noticed. Probably also to give some confidence to the oil investors but I am not an investment expert. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395111
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  > a pesky nuclear reactor would surely also endanger their precious oil and gas profits (A), stop taking obviously unserious legislation seriously, it's a bad look. (B), they can comfortably rely on other jurisdictions having their heads shoved way too far up their own assholes that those other jurisdictions will not ever adopt nuclear, and will therefore remain reliable oil and gas customers.
LatteLazy 4y ago
That's great. The issue is finding 99 more buyers so this can work at scale (the whole point of smr). Then you just have to deliver 100 reactors and do so on budget and without any defects. This is why I say the regulation is the EASY part. People were amazed when Tesla got off the ground because it was the first time anyone had succeeded at starting a new car maker in 100 years. This is the same idea, but much harder.

coder543 4y ago

> It's easy to get certified. Really? How many SMR designs have been certified in the last 20 years?

gene-h 4y ago

easy? They started the approval process in 2011 and the cost of approval was allegedly in the hundreds of millions of dollars. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power#Corporate_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power#Corporate_histor...