6 ms·

Seriously? I’m insanely pro-nuke, and work in the nuclear sector, but Westinghouse should really focus on their AP1000. They’ve already got deals in place with

Seriously? I’m insanely pro-nuke, and work in the nuclear sector, but Westinghouse should really focus on their AP1000. They’ve already got deals in place with several countries, and now that they’ve got them running in more than one country, there might be a chance of bringing costs down some. The light water SMR market is getting crowded rather fast. They’re competing with both GE (and their BWRX-300) and NuScale (with their modular designs).

Animats 3y ago
This seems to be a smaller version of the AP1000. Nice big containment vessel. That's a good thing. Fukushima had an undersized containment which failed, and Chernobyl didn't have much of one at all. Three Mile Island had a good containment vessel, and so their meltdown damage was contained. Some of the "small modular nuclear reactor designs are built on the assumption that they don't need a full scale containment vessel because nothing can go that wrong. That may not be a good assumption. There's a lot to be said for large amounts of steel and concrete around reactors.
- evilos 3y ago
  Which SMRs don't have a full scale containment vessel?
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    None, although I think some (NuScale?) save money by sharing pressurized containment volume among multiple reactors. Just hope you don't see multiple correlated meltdowns. Containment vessels could also be made smaller if steam filtering were used instead of planning to just contain and condense it. I don't know if any SMRs plan to do this.
    - evilos 3y ago
      As other poster mentioned, each nuscale module is fully self contained. Not only that, but they've modeled every module having a simultaneous scram in a 12 module plant, and modeled that the water level was lower than nominal. Still walk away safe.
    - Animats 3y ago
      NuScale's containment vessel is a metal cylinder around the reactor.[1] Each reactor has its own containment vessel. It's just slightly larger than the reactor, like Fukushima and Peach Bottom. Here's a good drawing.[2] No user-serviceable parts inside. The building is not a containment. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1535/ML15355A411.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1535/ML15355A411.pdf [2] https://spectrum.ieee.org/media-library/image.jpg?id=25574195 https://spectrum.ieee.org/media-library/image.jpg?id=2557419...
BMc2020 3y ago
Didn't the PRC buy 4 AP1000s and then start building their own knockoff? (not pirated so much as that was one of their demands and Westinghouse accepted)?
- mandevil 3y ago
  Anything bigger than 1600MW, Westinghouse doesn't get a licensing fee for it getting built. So they are building 1600MW size right now.
epistasis 3y ago
Given the track record of AP1000 construction, who do you think would ever order one? I don't see a future for this. If somebody thought it was a feasible design for construction in Western countries, they could buy the half completed sites at Summer for a song. I also think 300MW is too big. It's not really small enough to get the supposed benefits of small and modular. The entire nuclear industry appears to be off its rocker when it comes to designs that are possible to construct for any reasonable amount of money. They bungled the AP1000 so badly that it bankrupted Westinghouse, and there's no reason to believe that they learned enough from the experience to do better next time. It's all terribly depressing, and completely soured me on the possibility of nuclear for the next 20-40 years. And in 20-40 years, look at how far storage, wind, and solar will have developed. It's unlikely that my nuclear will ever be a dominant energy source.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  The whole industry, and its fan base, has descended into overt magical thinking. It is sad, and not a little ridiculous.
- m4rtink 3y ago
  Some older plant blocks were in the 300-500 MW range so I guess you could replace them with this ?
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Those older plants in the US have been shut down because they can't even earn back their operating costs.
- dirtsoc 3y ago
  What's sad is that it's mainly the US that has problems with this. China has managed to bring multiple of this reactor design to fruition while the US still screws around with building just two. I live in Georgia and the almost decade of overruns and corruption are being about to be paid for by Georgia Power customers via rate hikes.
alliao 3y ago
SMR is being sold as smaller thus inferring smaller mess when disaster strikes but I don't see that anywhere can you shed some light on whether it's safer? perhaps the smaller containment meant it can be constructed to a higher threshold?
- jabl 3y ago
  Smaller tends to mean it's easier to make things like passive emergency cooling systems (e.g. using convection and gravity), so you're not dependent on the diesel gensets actually starting when they're really needed.
DarkNova6 3y ago
maybe for the immediate future. But their best prospects by far lie in their LFR (Lead Fast Reactor) concept. Lead is such a superior concept for reactor design and neutron economy, and mostly held back by the pace in material science.

Animats 3y ago

This seems to be a smaller version of the AP1000. Nice big containment vessel. That's a good thing. Fukushima had an undersized containment which failed, and Chernobyl didn't have much of one at all. Three Mile Island had a good containment vessel, and so their meltdown damage was contained. Some of the "small modular nuclear reactor designs are built on the assumption that they don't need a full scale containment vessel because nothing can go that wrong. That may not be a good assumption. There's a lot to be said for large amounts of steel and concrete around reactors.

evilos 3y ago
Which SMRs don't have a full scale containment vessel?
- pfdietz 3y ago
  None, although I think some (NuScale?) save money by sharing pressurized containment volume among multiple reactors. Just hope you don't see multiple correlated meltdowns. Containment vessels could also be made smaller if steam filtering were used instead of planning to just contain and condense it. I don't know if any SMRs plan to do this.
  - evilos 3y ago
    As other poster mentioned, each nuscale module is fully self contained. Not only that, but they've modeled every module having a simultaneous scram in a 12 module plant, and modeled that the water level was lower than nominal. Still walk away safe.
  - Animats 3y ago
    NuScale's containment vessel is a metal cylinder around the reactor.[1] Each reactor has its own containment vessel. It's just slightly larger than the reactor, like Fukushima and Peach Bottom. Here's a good drawing.[2] No user-serviceable parts inside. The building is not a containment. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1535/ML15355A411.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1535/ML15355A411.pdf [2] https://spectrum.ieee.org/media-library/image.jpg?id=25574195 https://spectrum.ieee.org/media-library/image.jpg?id=2557419...

BMc2020 3y ago

Didn't the PRC buy 4 AP1000s and then start building their own knockoff? (not pirated so much as that was one of their demands and Westinghouse accepted)?

mandevil 3y ago
Anything bigger than 1600MW, Westinghouse doesn't get a licensing fee for it getting built. So they are building 1600MW size right now.

epistasis 3y ago

Given the track record of AP1000 construction, who do you think would ever order one? I don't see a future for this. If somebody thought it was a feasible design for construction in Western countries, they could buy the half completed sites at Summer for a song. I also think 300MW is too big. It's not really small enough to get the supposed benefits of small and modular. The entire nuclear industry appears to be off its rocker when it comes to designs that are possible to construct for any reasonable amount of money. They bungled the AP1000 so badly that it bankrupted Westinghouse, and there's no reason to believe that they learned enough from the experience to do better next time. It's all terribly depressing, and completely soured me on the possibility of nuclear for the next 20-40 years. And in 20-40 years, look at how far storage, wind, and solar will have developed. It's unlikely that my nuclear will ever be a dominant energy source.

pfdietz 3y ago
The whole industry, and its fan base, has descended into overt magical thinking. It is sad, and not a little ridiculous.
m4rtink 3y ago
Some older plant blocks were in the 300-500 MW range so I guess you could replace them with this ?
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Those older plants in the US have been shut down because they can't even earn back their operating costs.
dirtsoc 3y ago
What's sad is that it's mainly the US that has problems with this. China has managed to bring multiple of this reactor design to fruition while the US still screws around with building just two. I live in Georgia and the almost decade of overruns and corruption are being about to be paid for by Georgia Power customers via rate hikes.

alliao 3y ago

SMR is being sold as smaller thus inferring smaller mess when disaster strikes but I don't see that anywhere can you shed some light on whether it's safer? perhaps the smaller containment meant it can be constructed to a higher threshold?

jabl 3y ago
Smaller tends to mean it's easier to make things like passive emergency cooling systems (e.g. using convection and gravity), so you're not dependent on the diesel gensets actually starting when they're really needed.

DarkNova6 3y ago

maybe for the immediate future. But their best prospects by far lie in their LFR (Lead Fast Reactor) concept. Lead is such a superior concept for reactor design and neutron economy, and mostly held back by the pace in material science.