10 ms·

Some history might be worth going in to here. The AP1000 design was an evolution of an earlier design called the AP600. The AP600 conceptual design apparently

by rgmerk 3y ago

Some history might be worth going in to here. The AP1000 design was an evolution of an earlier design called the AP600. The AP600 conceptual design apparently didn't find any customers because the economics of it were unappealing compared to larger reactors. In a nutshell, if you're going to build a huge containment building etc etc etc, it doesn't cost (in theory) that much more to go even bigger and get more power out of it. So why SMRs? It turned out that because you were building so few AP1000s, and building them with different workforces each time, that there was very little learning going on. Some bright spark seeing what's gone on in other industries had the bright idea that if you could build a nuclear reactor in a factory, and increase the number of units built and minimise the amount of work done on site, you'd start getting learning rates and economies of scale that easily outweigh the lower inherent efficiency of a smaller reactor. At 300MW, this reactor seems to be too big to be "back of a few trucks" construction, and thus you still have the bespoke construction project issues, and sufficiently small that the construction costs of 4 of them are likely to be much higher than one AP1000 (the AP1000 actually puts out about 1100 MW).

jay_kyburz 3y ago
You would think it would be economical to just move the work force around with the projects. You get the talent, but built in place.
- jandrese 3y ago
  It's harder to find quality people who are willing to relocate their family every time a job is finished.
  - rgmerk 3y ago
    To be fair, in a lot of cases you'd probably build multiple units on the same site which would get you some learning effects. But compared to wind, solar, and batteries...
  - prpl 3y ago
    Do you know many pipe fitters?
  - wahern 3y ago
    A large portion of the workforce which recently completed Vogtle units 3 and 4 temporarily relocated to the site from around the country. Many people lived at RV camps opportunistically setup by farmers or others with large empty lots. Especially if you had family, living out of an RV was a good way to minimize expenses and maximize how often you could afford to travel back home. At big jobs like these, especially outside a handful of major metro areas, there will never be enough local labor. Even for "unskilled" positions, you don't want too many unproven or inexperienced people as they're likely to cause trouble, such as hurting themselves or others, or not consistently showing up on time--schedules can be both grueling and erratic, and many people can't hack it.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Tesla could never reach full capacity at GF1 because they couldn’t find enough people willing to move to Sparks, NV. Also why they picked Austin for that GF. The nomad tradespeople you mention exist, but they are rare, and most likely dwindling as they get old and die and no one replaces them (a problem all trades currently).
    - jay_kyburz 3y ago
      Yeah, I was thinking if you can afford to pay people to go live on an oil rig you could pay people to live in a small town in a rural area.
- nrp 3y ago
  I believe that is how KEPCO operates on the reactors they build outside of Korea.
- DarkNova6 3y ago
  it's not only the workforce, it is also the difference in bureaucracy and regulations between each state which limits knowledge transfer.
PaulHoule 3y ago
Also the AP1000 takes a superheavy forging press which can take a few 100 tons of steel. There are just so many of those, only in certain countries (North America does poorly) and those presses can build a limited number of reaction vessels. A smaller reaction vessel needs a smaller press which is easier to find.
acidburnNSA 3y ago
The best way to solve this problem is to build a huge shipyard-based reactor-making gigafactory that makes floating gigawatt scale reactors that are floated to location. You can operate them offshore or on land. This was actually attempted in the 1970s by Offshore Power Systems (joint venture between Westinghouse and Newport News). They bought and installed the world's largest gantry crane on Blount Island in Jacksonville Florida and got a license from the NRC to build the first 8 of them. Sadly no one bought and they shut it down. Crazy story. Super interesting from a rapid decarbonization perspective. https://whatisnuclear.com/offshore-nuclear-plants.html https://whatisnuclear.com/offshore-nuclear-plants.html
- aeontech 3y ago
  That is incredible! If this project actually went into production, we would be living in a very different world right now...
  - Mistletoe 3y ago
    People always say this, but if it was so great wouldn’t someone have bought some? The money never seems to work out.
    - acidburnNSA 3y ago
      There were at least some confounding factors beyond how good of an idea this was. The primary expected electricity customer was oil refineries off the New Jersey coast. The Atlantic Generating Station was to be the first of these power plants. But after the 1973 oil shocks, oil refinery energy demand fell more than expected. By the time things were looking up again, Three Mile Island happened in 1979 and the general sentiment was turning against nuclear.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        The primary thing that happened in the 1970s to ruin the US market for nuclear was PURPA, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. This act began the opening of US electricity markets to non-utility providers. It turned out there was very large potential for this: cogeneration, and just low overhead fossil generation, especially as natural gas became seen as more abundant and combustion turbines improved. Those oil refineries you mention became prime targets for cogeneration. Instead of burning fuel to provide process heat (for distillation, for example), a refinery could instead add a combustion turbine topping cycle ahead of that and produce electric power at near 100% marginal efficiency. This reflects the large second law losses involved in burning a fuel to produce relatively low temperature process heat. Basically any industrial process that used low or moderate temperature process heat could become a source of electric power via cogeneration after PURPA was enacted.
simonh 3y ago
The problem is they are constrained by the needs of the one customer they definitely have, the US Navy. It's their need for reactor power plants for their nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers that is funding the development of these systems and setting the basic requirements. The commercial market is an afterthought.

by rgmerk 3y ago

jay_kyburz 3y ago

You would think it would be economical to just move the work force around with the projects. You get the talent, but built in place.

jandrese 3y ago
It's harder to find quality people who are willing to relocate their family every time a job is finished.
- rgmerk 3y ago
  To be fair, in a lot of cases you'd probably build multiple units on the same site which would get you some learning effects. But compared to wind, solar, and batteries...
- prpl 3y ago
  Do you know many pipe fitters?
- wahern 3y ago
  A large portion of the workforce which recently completed Vogtle units 3 and 4 temporarily relocated to the site from around the country. Many people lived at RV camps opportunistically setup by farmers or others with large empty lots. Especially if you had family, living out of an RV was a good way to minimize expenses and maximize how often you could afford to travel back home. At big jobs like these, especially outside a handful of major metro areas, there will never be enough local labor. Even for "unskilled" positions, you don't want too many unproven or inexperienced people as they're likely to cause trouble, such as hurting themselves or others, or not consistently showing up on time--schedules can be both grueling and erratic, and many people can't hack it.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Tesla could never reach full capacity at GF1 because they couldn’t find enough people willing to move to Sparks, NV. Also why they picked Austin for that GF. The nomad tradespeople you mention exist, but they are rare, and most likely dwindling as they get old and die and no one replaces them (a problem all trades currently).
  - jay_kyburz 3y ago
    Yeah, I was thinking if you can afford to pay people to go live on an oil rig you could pay people to live in a small town in a rural area.
nrp 3y ago
I believe that is how KEPCO operates on the reactors they build outside of Korea.
DarkNova6 3y ago
it's not only the workforce, it is also the difference in bureaucracy and regulations between each state which limits knowledge transfer.

PaulHoule 3y ago

Also the AP1000 takes a superheavy forging press which can take a few 100 tons of steel. There are just so many of those, only in certain countries (North America does poorly) and those presses can build a limited number of reaction vessels. A smaller reaction vessel needs a smaller press which is easier to find.

acidburnNSA 3y ago

The best way to solve this problem is to build a huge shipyard-based reactor-making gigafactory that makes floating gigawatt scale reactors that are floated to location. You can operate them offshore or on land. This was actually attempted in the 1970s by Offshore Power Systems (joint venture between Westinghouse and Newport News). They bought and installed the world's largest gantry crane on Blount Island in Jacksonville Florida and got a license from the NRC to build the first 8 of them. Sadly no one bought and they shut it down. Crazy story. Super interesting from a rapid decarbonization perspective. https://whatisnuclear.com/offshore-nuclear-plants.html https://whatisnuclear.com/offshore-nuclear-plants.html

aeontech 3y ago
That is incredible! If this project actually went into production, we would be living in a very different world right now...
- Mistletoe 3y ago
  People always say this, but if it was so great wouldn’t someone have bought some? The money never seems to work out.
  - acidburnNSA 3y ago
    There were at least some confounding factors beyond how good of an idea this was. The primary expected electricity customer was oil refineries off the New Jersey coast. The Atlantic Generating Station was to be the first of these power plants. But after the 1973 oil shocks, oil refinery energy demand fell more than expected. By the time things were looking up again, Three Mile Island happened in 1979 and the general sentiment was turning against nuclear.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      The primary thing that happened in the 1970s to ruin the US market for nuclear was PURPA, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. This act began the opening of US electricity markets to non-utility providers. It turned out there was very large potential for this: cogeneration, and just low overhead fossil generation, especially as natural gas became seen as more abundant and combustion turbines improved. Those oil refineries you mention became prime targets for cogeneration. Instead of burning fuel to provide process heat (for distillation, for example), a refinery could instead add a combustion turbine topping cycle ahead of that and produce electric power at near 100% marginal efficiency. This reflects the large second law losses involved in burning a fuel to produce relatively low temperature process heat. Basically any industrial process that used low or moderate temperature process heat could become a source of electric power via cogeneration after PURPA was enacted.

simonh 3y ago

The problem is they are constrained by the needs of the one customer they definitely have, the US Navy. It's their need for reactor power plants for their nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers that is funding the development of these systems and setting the basic requirements. The commercial market is an afterthought.