7 ms·

To quote the late Admiral Rickover, "An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is sma

• credit_guy 4y ago
  In this particular case, what is this quote supposed to imply?
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • eganist 4y ago
    > In this particular case, what is this quote supposed to imply? I don't know that it's supposed to imply anything but rather shine a light on the different acceptance criteria for a study reactor v. one that generates power for, in his case, mission critical needs (though power for homes and businesses would be life-critical, so it's up there). If a study reactor breaks, even though there's a possible risk to life depending on how it fails, you can endure the downtime for a bit while bringing it back up. If a practical reactor breaks, people are far more likely to die.
    • likeabbas 4y ago
      That's why it's important to have a multitude of energy sources on a competitive power grid. The nice thing about SMRs is you can build enough of them to make the overall output consistent as needed, even with a higher tolerance for failure of any individual reactor.
      • moloch-hai 4y ago
        A higher tolerance for random failure, but extreme exposure to expensive repairs for systematic failure. Anything $M you have to fix in N of them costs Nx$M.
    • sandworm101 4y ago
      A study reactor is also designed to break. It is meant to be easily opened up and examined after a fault. It is meant to validate the core process but also explore edge case situations. So it needs to fail gracefully. That is a more complex beast than any final product.
  • idontwantthis 4y ago
    That small, modular, cheap reactors have been promised many times for decades and have never panned out.
    • docandrew 4y ago
      We use them in nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, so the tech seems feasible - not sure why commercial use for small reactors is such a difficult stretch.
      • rippercushions 4y ago
        Nuclear submarines cost on the order of $6B a pop, so I'd hesitate to describe anything about them as "cheap". We use nuclear reactors in them because there's no other power source that's as compact and self-contained.
        • phone8675309 4y ago
          Plus worst case for a nuclear submarine is that you flood the reactor with sea water if you have a loss of cooling.
          • sebcat 4y ago
            Surely there are worse cases for a sub than this?
            • nine_k 4y ago
              The idea is that you are not going to have a meltdown even in a badly malfunctioning reactor.
              • thaumasiotes 4y ago
                Is it? It's not at all difficult to stock enough seawater to flood a terrestrial plant. What's distinguishing the submarine?
  • nashashmi 4y ago
    It is not built yet. So it is theoretical. ... And Academic.
    • credit_guy 4y ago
      In that case Rickover's observations don't apply at all: (1) It is simple -> nobody said NuScale's reactor is simple. It took NRC about 6 years to approve it, and in the process NuScale had to produce about half a million pages of documentation (2) It is small -> not really. It is smaller than full size reactors, but then it delivers only 50 MW, not 1GW. Per unit of electricity delivered, it is most likely somewhat larger than a full size nuclear power plant (3) It is cheap -> relative to what? it's not that cheap. If anything, see the comments in this thread, it appears to be expensive (4) It is light -> this does not apply here. Rickover was concerned with submarines, where weight was important. This is not a reactor designed for submarines. I don't know how light it is, but nobody cares about this (5) It can be built very quickly -> well, if the first one is supposed to get online in 2029, that does not seem to be very quick, does it? (6) It is very flexible in purpose (’omnibus reactor’) -> NuScale's reactor is designed to generate electricity. That's it. What is flexibility in purpose? (7) Very little development is required -> NuScale has already worked for one decade on this. It will take until the end of this decade to see one come online. Nobody claimed "very little development is required" It will use mostly off-the-shelf components -> not really. NuScale will use a Korean manufacturer that is accredited by NRC to manufacture componenets for nuclear reactors. There's nothing off-the-shelf about this. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now. -> it depends what "being built now" means. NuScale can't start building before it has all the approvals. It is working on getting these approvals, if this counts as "being built now", then it's being built now. More to the point. Rickover was talking about a completely different context. People venturing cheap ideas, while he needed concrete reactors for his submarines. We are in a different world. NRC is extraordinarily stringent. The fact that NuScale got their approval is a phenomenal achievement. This should not be dismissed with the same tired old quote from Rickover that gets posted on HN almost every time we talk about nuclear reactors.
      • nextaccountic 4y ago
  • gonzo41 4y ago
    Reality is harder than fiction. And people are bad at maintaining pipes.
  • jacquesm 4y ago
    I'll answer that with another quote: "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is."
    • credit_guy 4y ago
      Why the flippant quote?
      • jacquesm 4y ago
        It's not flippant at all. It is the essence of the much longer version and the real lesson contained therein, you asked a question and I answered it. If you see it as flippant then that might reflect on you. Your other comment further down in this thread is flippant, even though it is a much longer one: you reject out of hand what is contained within these words without taking the time to ponder how they do apply to the matter at hand.
        • credit_guy 4y ago
          > If you see it as flippant then that might reflect on you. It does reflect on me. It reflects the fact that I can't read minds. You gave a widely known quote, and in your mind it was crystal clear what you meant. But to other people, who can't read your mind, it just sound flippant. It sounds like you think NuScale is a bunch of theoreticians. And that with your remark you are trying to put down their decade-long quest to achieve something. Maybe it does not sound flippant to you, but I assure you, it is flippant.
          • jacquesm 4y ago
            The message, to expand on it is that they are in the earlier stages of their development and the safe bet is that by the time it is all said and done things will be much more in line with what we've come to expect from the nuclear industry, including any and all of the statements already in line with that today. So by the time it is done it will be more expensive, likely heavier, likely way late, more complex and narrower in its possible range of applications. It's not a law, it is an observation made over many nuclear deployments and to the best of my knowledge there isn't a single project that was an exception so I expect it to be true this time around as well. Which is why you can safely ignore any of the touted advantages until the product is ready to be fielded in quantity. Assuming it ever will be fielded in quantity, plenty of designs were slated for large numbers of deployment and ended up being one-offs or at best single digit runs because of unforeseen issues with the design.
• ikrenji 4y ago
  this could be said about computers back in the day too. they used to take up entire floors, now they fit on your pocket. i suspect something similar applies for tech in general and reactors also
  • moloch-hai 4y ago
    Cars are mature tech. Can you fit one in your pocket?
    • z3phyr 4y ago
      Yeah. RC cars can fit in your pockets. But you can't be the passengers.
    • p1mrx 4y ago
      Sure, you can buy a 1:76 scale electric car for around $80.
      • moloch-hai 4y ago
        In other words, no.
    • rcme 4y ago
      What is a car? Is it 4 wheels, a driver seat, passenger seat, three read seats, and a trunk? Or is it an efficient means for getting from point A to B on paved roadways? If a "car" is the latter, then there have been plenty of advancements. Electric scooters and bikes are two pieces of tech you can very easily take with you. Your car analogy doesn't really work. It's like saying "desktop computers are mature tech, can I fit one in my pocket?" No, but you can fit a smartphone in your pocket, which does many of the same things a desktop computer can do.
  • djtango 4y ago
    Oof, reactor in my pocket is a tasty prospect. Personal computing and personal transport could get super exciting. Basically a grown up way of saying Iron Man suits one day...
• raverbashing 4y ago
  After SpaceX showed how it is possible to build rockets much cheaper than previous ones I attribute the size and complexity of current reactors to outdated mentality by their designers Setting goals like "maximum efficiency" and trying to bring cost per MWh too low is a self-defeating exercise Example: designs that require active cooling.
  • zrail 4y ago
    Kind of a fraught comparison. SpaceX intentionally learned by blowing rockets up, figuring out what went wrong, fixing, and trying again. The same learning process applied to nuclear reactors is problematic at best.
    • raverbashing 4y ago
      You obviously don't need to blow up reactors to learn stuff Build, prototype and see how parts react (for example, corrosion) way before an emergency happens. Build a first version, then improve on a second version. Iterations will work better with smaller reactors than with bigger ones And you do need some research into materials, but that's part of the process and evolution.
      • moloch-hai 4y ago
        > You obviously don't need to blow up reactors to learn stuff Some people do. Did, even.
        • raverbashing 4y ago
          If only Coal plant accidents were taken with such knee-jerk reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly...
          • moloch-hai 4y ago
            We have seven+ decades of experience now. We are certain of two things. (1) Price of reactor n+1 is not less than n's; (2) every number produced by the nuke industry is a lie.
• AviationAtom 4y ago
  Our new nuclear reactor here in Georgia (Plant Votgle unit 3), the first new one in 29 (?) years, is a great example. Cost and time overruns galore. It's going to end up costing almost double what they projected. The time overrun is attributed to Westinghouse's bankruptcy, but Westinghouse's bankruptcy was also tied to trying to take on this project. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-nucle/how-two-cutting-edge-u-s-nuclear-projects-bankrupted-westinghouse-idUSKBN17Y0CQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin...
  • accrual 4y ago
    I wonder what causes the cost projections to be so far off. Not enough time or research into what the final structure will actually cost? Overly optimistic projections to help ensure the project is approved and started, thus getting the "foot in the door" to complete it?
    • enslavedrobot 4y ago
      It's rule number one of the big physics playbook. Make outrageous claims that funders can't verify cause they ain't good at math. Then let the good times roll! See the LHC, ITER, James Webb, F35, quantum computing etc.
    • AviationAtom 4y ago
      I think the biggest cost is compliance. Paranoia is the maximum after the various incidents.
      • EricE 4y ago
        >"I think the biggest cost is compliance." Bingo!
    • panick21_ 4y ago
      The big problem is the lack of knowlage and experienced. Simply put almost nobody has experience with building reactors, and specially not that one. And outside of it being nuclear, its also an incredible large civil engineering project with incredibly high specification. The US is not exactly known for being great at executing large civil engineering projects. The reality is if you want cheap nuclear you need to mass produce it, just like with everything else. But that requires large scale state action and planning. Or alternatively having a competitive market for smaller nuclear. But for that to happen regulatory approval processes and many other problems are in the way.