2 ms·

> Why does the Navy not build 3 smaller modules and get even better scaling? That's a good point. Actually the Navy does build such smaller modules. The Navy

> Why does the Navy not build 3 smaller modules and get even better scaling? That's a good point. Actually the Navy does build such smaller modules. The Navy uses 2 types of naval reactors, one for Virginia-class submarines, the S9G, which is very close to one NuScale module, and one for Ford-class carriers, the A1B, about 3 times larger. Each Ford-class carrier uses 2 A1B reactors. Why not 6 S9G? I don't know. But then why not a single reactor twice as large as an A1B? I don't know either. It looks like there are some tradeoffs. In any case, the fact that the Navy can build economically SMR-sized reactors is encouraging. Of course, the Navy can use technologies that are not available on the civilian market, for example their reactors use weapon-grade uranium. So it's not completely an apples-and-apples comparison. Still, NuScale has produced more than one million pages of documentation to get their SMR design approved by the NRC. One can imagine they also put a lot of thinking in the economic viability of the project. One way or another they convinced a large engineering, procurement and construction company (Fluor Corp) to buy them.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
> Still, NuScale has produced more than one million pages of documentation to get their SMR design approved by the NRC. One can imagine they also put a lot of thinking in the economic viability of the project. Just because the pile of sh*t is massive doesn’t mean there’s a pony somewhere underneath it.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  You mean the docs they sent the NRC? That's not a pile of shit. The NRC is one of the most conservative regulatory bodies anywhere in the world, you can't send them garbage. Oklo tried that stunt and fell flat on their face [1]. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/col/aurora-oklo.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/col/auro...
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    No, I mean the economics. Oklo's issue was, and I quote, that they "repeatedly failed to provide substantive information [...] on the maximum credible accident (MCA) for the Aurora design, the safety classification of structures, systems, and components (SSCs), and other issues needed for the NRC staff to establish a schedule and complete its technical review." The NRC denied them, without prejudice might I add, a license based on an evaluation of the technical merits and safety of the reactor, not on its economics.
    - credit_guy 3y ago
      In that case you are right. I don't know what NuScale's economic argument was, and there's a (pretty good) chance that it will not work out. But, imagine that whenever you want a new car, the car company sent a crew to your house and builds the car in your backyard. All the parts needed will be shipped to your address, and workbenches, tools, machinery, too. They put the car together, paint it, dry it, and voila, the car is yours. Would it surprise you if it was 10 times more expensive than if it came from an assembly line?
      - _aavaa_ 3y ago
        Again, I am not disagreeing with you, building nuclear plants on a conveyer belt would allow you to decrease the per unit price as you make more of it. My issue with the approach is that the prices for those first (100) units, even before the inevitable order of magnitude cost overruns, results in more expensive electricity than the one off projects they aim to replace. This is coupled by the twin problems of a) alternative tech which is constantly benefiting from wrights law, and b) a lot of competition in the field fighting over a small number of reactors. Not much to do about a), so if this technology were to succeed, the government would have to play kingmaker and pick only one company such that they actually go through enough units to drop down the price curve. This might work domestically, but I foresee political difficulties when trying to convince other countries to abandon their homegrown tech in favour of yours.
        credit_guy 3y ago
Eggpants 3y ago
One A1B is enough to power/propel a carrier. They have 2 A1B in case one engine faults/maintenance, they have another one available. Most ships have backups for major systems.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

> Still, NuScale has produced more than one million pages of documentation to get their SMR design approved by the NRC. One can imagine they also put a lot of thinking in the economic viability of the project. Just because the pile of sh*t is massive doesn’t mean there’s a pony somewhere underneath it.

credit_guy 3y ago
You mean the docs they sent the NRC? That's not a pile of shit. The NRC is one of the most conservative regulatory bodies anywhere in the world, you can't send them garbage. Oklo tried that stunt and fell flat on their face [1]. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/col/aurora-oklo.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/large-lwr/col/auro...
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  No, I mean the economics. Oklo's issue was, and I quote, that they "repeatedly failed to provide substantive information [...] on the maximum credible accident (MCA) for the Aurora design, the safety classification of structures, systems, and components (SSCs), and other issues needed for the NRC staff to establish a schedule and complete its technical review." The NRC denied them, without prejudice might I add, a license based on an evaluation of the technical merits and safety of the reactor, not on its economics.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    In that case you are right. I don't know what NuScale's economic argument was, and there's a (pretty good) chance that it will not work out. But, imagine that whenever you want a new car, the car company sent a crew to your house and builds the car in your backyard. All the parts needed will be shipped to your address, and workbenches, tools, machinery, too. They put the car together, paint it, dry it, and voila, the car is yours. Would it surprise you if it was 10 times more expensive than if it came from an assembly line?
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      Again, I am not disagreeing with you, building nuclear plants on a conveyer belt would allow you to decrease the per unit price as you make more of it. My issue with the approach is that the prices for those first (100) units, even before the inevitable order of magnitude cost overruns, results in more expensive electricity than the one off projects they aim to replace. This is coupled by the twin problems of a) alternative tech which is constantly benefiting from wrights law, and b) a lot of competition in the field fighting over a small number of reactors. Not much to do about a), so if this technology were to succeed, the government would have to play kingmaker and pick only one company such that they actually go through enough units to drop down the price curve. This might work domestically, but I foresee political difficulties when trying to convince other countries to abandon their homegrown tech in favour of yours.
      - credit_guy 3y ago

Eggpants 3y ago

One A1B is enough to power/propel a carrier. They have 2 A1B in case one engine faults/maintenance, they have another one available. Most ships have backups for major systems.