6 ms·

A very opinionated view on energy creation, leaving out crucial information and recent developments. I’m very pro-nuclear but there are large issues which can

A very opinionated view on energy creation, leaving out crucial information and recent developments. I’m very pro-nuclear but there are large issues which can only be solved politically. Nuclear requires governmental investments because building new reactors are among the most notorious of all construction projects. Nearly all expertise on building them has been lost in most places of the world. Their operational costs are almost non-existent, but the monstrous overhead of building them ruins economic viability. France had decades of cheap nuclear energy because they mass produced the same reactor type and utilized economies of scale. The same could be done today, but would require much more than just one country committing to it (and now the additional politics just make everything worse). Unless some Gen4 reactors like the LFR from westinghouse are technological miracles (and they could) I see very little hope for nuclear. Especially with sodium ion batteries on the horizon as large scale energy tanks.

credit_guy 4y ago
> I’m very pro-nuclear but [...] Nuclear requires governmental investments because building new reactors are among the most notorious of all construction projects. I'm very pro-nuclear too. Government investments are ok, as long as the idea is to start a virtuous cycle. Right now we are (and have been for the last 30 years) in a vicious cycle: projects are late because the expertise is lacking, and the expertise is lacking because there are not enough projects to produce a knowledgeable workforce. Basically at each nuclear reactor construction site, the majority of the people are new to the job ... and won't use the hard earned skills in the remaining of their working life. That's a tragedy. And that drives costs up. That is not happening in the industry of naval nuclear reactors (in the US). That industry is churning about one or two reactors per year, the workforce is stable, each worker will work on dozens of reactors during their career. Costs are kept in check, projects are delivered on time, accidents (or incidents) are non-existent. If that's possible for the Navy, then it's not magic. It can happen for the civies as well. We just need to get over the initial hump.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Naval reactors are tiny, inefficient, use high emriched uranium, and are ludicrously expensive even compared to Vogtle. Being slightly more honest about costs and timelines isn't a great sale point. If this fairy tale were true, then the Chinese program would be accelerating rather than failing to meet targets, and the admitted costs would be going down instead of up. Civilian nuclear reactors are for keeping fresh plutonium on hand and making countries without enrichment dependent. Once they are doing that the military support dries up and programs stop expanding.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    > Naval reactors are tiny, inefficient, use high enriched uranium. Tiny? Virginia-class submarines use an S9G reactor [1], which produces 210 MW thermal, very close to NuScale's SMR (250 MW thermal). Inefficient? Take the A1B reactor that powers the Gerald Ford carrier. It has a thermal capacity of 700 MW thermal. Out of that it sends 260 MWt straight to the propellers, and it also produces 125 MW of electricity (from the remaining 440 MWt). That's an efficiency of 28.4%, which is below the 32-34% of commercial nuclear reactors, but not by that much. Uses highly enriched uranium. That's the case of the American reactors, so the reactor either is not refueled at all during the lifetime of the vessel, or it's refueled only once. French naval nuclear reactors use 7% uranium, which is only slightly richer than the uranium used in civilian reactors (that can go as high as 5%). > and are ludicrously expensive even compared to Vogtle. Incorrect. Production costs of naval reactors are classified, but you can use this CBO report [2] for an educated guess: The Navy would use one of the twin A1B reactors that will power the new Ford class (CVN-78) of nuclear aircraft carriers to power the LH(X) amphibious assault ships [...] Thus, CBO estimated that the acquisition-cost premium [...] would be about [...] $0.9 billion per LH(X). The A1B generates 125 MWe out of 440 MWt. If it were to convert all its 700 MWt to electricity, it would be 200 MWe. That would cost, according to the CBO report about $0.9 billion (actually somewhat less, since this is the difference between the "acquisition cost premium" i.e. the difference between the nuclear reactor and the conventional gas turbine). So that translates into $4.5 BN per GWe. Vogtle 3 and 4 by comparison cost $28 BN for about 2.5 GWe, or $11.2 BN per 1 GWe, which is two and a half time more than the $4.5 BN per GW of the naval reactor. >Chinese program would be accelerating rather than failing to meet targets The Chinese program is accelerating. See for example [4]: It was reported in November 2021 that China planned to build 150 new reactors at a cost of $440bn (2.8trn yuan), which is more reactors than the rest of the world has built over the past 35 years. > Civilian nuclear reactors are for keeping fresh plutonium on hand and making countries without enrichment dependent. Once they are doing that the military support dries up and programs stop expanding. Absolutely not true. There are many more countries operating nuclear reactors than countries that have nuclear weapons. In Europe alone there are 11 countries other than France or the UK that generate more than 25% of their electricity using nuclear power plants [5]. None of these countries have nuclear weapons or secret plans to acquire nuclear weapons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor [3] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/05-12-nuclearpropulsion.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-... [4] https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/weekly-data-chinas-nuclear-pipeline-as-big-as-the-rest-of-the-worlds-combined/ https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/weekly-data-china... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Their operational costs are almost non-existent, but the monstrous overhead of building them ruins economic viability. The 'non-existent' operating costs are financially equal to renewables (and rapidly approaching renewables + storage) and the social and ecological costs in kazakhstan, uzbekistan, niger, australia etc. are on par with coal mining or fracking.

credit_guy 4y ago

> I’m very pro-nuclear but [...] Nuclear requires governmental investments because building new reactors are among the most notorious of all construction projects. I'm very pro-nuclear too. Government investments are ok, as long as the idea is to start a virtuous cycle. Right now we are (and have been for the last 30 years) in a vicious cycle: projects are late because the expertise is lacking, and the expertise is lacking because there are not enough projects to produce a knowledgeable workforce. Basically at each nuclear reactor construction site, the majority of the people are new to the job ... and won't use the hard earned skills in the remaining of their working life. That's a tragedy. And that drives costs up. That is not happening in the industry of naval nuclear reactors (in the US). That industry is churning about one or two reactors per year, the workforce is stable, each worker will work on dozens of reactors during their career. Costs are kept in check, projects are delivered on time, accidents (or incidents) are non-existent. If that's possible for the Navy, then it's not magic. It can happen for the civies as well. We just need to get over the initial hump.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Naval reactors are tiny, inefficient, use high emriched uranium, and are ludicrously expensive even compared to Vogtle. Being slightly more honest about costs and timelines isn't a great sale point. If this fairy tale were true, then the Chinese program would be accelerating rather than failing to meet targets, and the admitted costs would be going down instead of up. Civilian nuclear reactors are for keeping fresh plutonium on hand and making countries without enrichment dependent. Once they are doing that the military support dries up and programs stop expanding.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > Naval reactors are tiny, inefficient, use high enriched uranium. Tiny? Virginia-class submarines use an S9G reactor [1], which produces 210 MW thermal, very close to NuScale's SMR (250 MW thermal). Inefficient? Take the A1B reactor that powers the Gerald Ford carrier. It has a thermal capacity of 700 MW thermal. Out of that it sends 260 MWt straight to the propellers, and it also produces 125 MW of electricity (from the remaining 440 MWt). That's an efficiency of 28.4%, which is below the 32-34% of commercial nuclear reactors, but not by that much. Uses highly enriched uranium. That's the case of the American reactors, so the reactor either is not refueled at all during the lifetime of the vessel, or it's refueled only once. French naval nuclear reactors use 7% uranium, which is only slightly richer than the uranium used in civilian reactors (that can go as high as 5%). > and are ludicrously expensive even compared to Vogtle. Incorrect. Production costs of naval reactors are classified, but you can use this CBO report [2] for an educated guess: The Navy would use one of the twin A1B reactors that will power the new Ford class (CVN-78) of nuclear aircraft carriers to power the LH(X) amphibious assault ships [...] Thus, CBO estimated that the acquisition-cost premium [...] would be about [...] $0.9 billion per LH(X). The A1B generates 125 MWe out of 440 MWt. If it were to convert all its 700 MWt to electricity, it would be 200 MWe. That would cost, according to the CBO report about $0.9 billion (actually somewhat less, since this is the difference between the "acquisition cost premium" i.e. the difference between the nuclear reactor and the conventional gas turbine). So that translates into $4.5 BN per GWe. Vogtle 3 and 4 by comparison cost $28 BN for about 2.5 GWe, or $11.2 BN per 1 GWe, which is two and a half time more than the $4.5 BN per GW of the naval reactor. >Chinese program would be accelerating rather than failing to meet targets The Chinese program is accelerating. See for example [4]: It was reported in November 2021 that China planned to build 150 new reactors at a cost of $440bn (2.8trn yuan), which is more reactors than the rest of the world has built over the past 35 years. > Civilian nuclear reactors are for keeping fresh plutonium on hand and making countries without enrichment dependent. Once they are doing that the military support dries up and programs stop expanding. Absolutely not true. There are many more countries operating nuclear reactors than countries that have nuclear weapons. In Europe alone there are 11 countries other than France or the UK that generate more than 25% of their electricity using nuclear power plants [5]. None of these countries have nuclear weapons or secret plans to acquire nuclear weapons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S9G_reactor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor [3] https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/05-12-nuclearpropulsion.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-... [4] https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/weekly-data-chinas-nuclear-pipeline-as-big-as-the-rest-of-the-worlds-combined/ https://www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/power/weekly-data-china... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Their operational costs are almost non-existent, but the monstrous overhead of building them ruins economic viability. The 'non-existent' operating costs are financially equal to renewables (and rapidly approaching renewables + storage) and the social and ecological costs in kazakhstan, uzbekistan, niger, australia etc. are on par with coal mining or fracking.