4 ms·

Given the extensive security requirements for nuclear and the cost of this reactor itself, I struggle to see how it can be cost effective compared to renewables

Given the extensive security requirements for nuclear and the cost of this reactor itself, I struggle to see how it can be cost effective compared to renewables or even a diesel generator. Discussions on hacker News, which is very pro nuclear always tend to emphasise the technical advantages and neglect economic considerations.

atomic128 2y ago
Hacker News tends to be pro-solar, pro-wind, and anti-nuclear. Discussions on Hacker News tend to overlook the unreliable nature of intermittent solar and wind power sources. The hidden costs of solar and wind are also overlooked: the cost of land, the cost of transmission infrastructure, the cost of battery storage, the short lifespan of the hardware, the requirement for fossil fuel backup generators, etc. Here's Yann LeCun (Vice-President, Chief AI Scientist at Meta) describing the advantages of nuclear versus solar and wind in a different, larger-scale context: AI datacenters will be built next to energy production sites that can produce gigawatt-scale, low-cost, low-emission electricity continuously. Basically, next to nuclear power plants. The advantage is that there is no need for expensive and wasteful long-distance distribution infrastructure. Note: yes, solar and wind are nice and all, but they require lots of land and massive-scale energy storage systems for when there is too little sun and/or wind. Neither simple nor cheap. Link to LeCun's comment on X here, along with a discussion of why solar and wind are not enough: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41621097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41621097 The same is true on smaller scales.
- moralestapia 2y ago
  Also, plenty of locations where cooling is free. This will make AI OpEx almost negligible. In line with OpenAI's premise of making intelligence very cheap. Only issue but not a big one is latency, i.e. Starlink will become extremely valuable in the upcoming years.
foxyv 2y ago
Most of the security around nuclear reactors is to prevent disruption of critical power infrastructure and barring access to spent fuel rods. This design would need far less security since it is sealed and not a huge plant that would cut power to half the USA if destroyed. Stealing one of these would be pretty pointless. It would be far easier to get much more dangerous isotopes from one of the thousands of hospitals that use such things or a laboratory. The 20% enrichment is not enough to produce viable weapons either. Uranium enrichment has just gotten way too easy with new centrifuge designs. Applications are mostly stuff like Antarctic research projects and remote oil fields. Also, if it is approved for such uses, it could power a container ship saving huge amounts of money on diesel fuel which is about half their operating cost.
throwawayffffas 2y ago
You could have multiple reactors at the same site. Like 100 for example.
- killingtime74 2y ago
  That's true and would bring down the average cost a lot
credit_guy 2y ago
> Given the extensive security requirements for nuclear I can see a need for security, but I think power plants in general must be quite secure, otherwise a terrorist can waltz in, put a stick of dynamite under a boiler and boom, one gigawatt of electricity goes offline. > the cost of this reactor itself Westinghouse is quite tight-lipped about this reactor design. If you go to the NRC site with their application, most stuff is withheld from the public view [1]. However, they seem to have addressed the 2 big cost drivers of nuclear reactors. Their reactor does not need a high pressure vessel, and it has passive cooling, so that it can't melt down. The second part is kind of trivial. The square-cube law says that smaller reactors are more efficient at passive cooling, the smaller the better. That's one of the reasons the US Navy never had an accident with one of its hundreds of naval reactors. The no need for the high pressure vessel is quite unique. The cooling is done with liquid sodium, not with water. Water at high temperature needs to be kept under huge pressures to not boil, but liquid sodium does not have that problem. I think Westinghouse envisions that they will, at some point, be able to manufacture these reactors on an assembly line, and maybe build several per day. If they get to that point, then maybe a reactor will be more expensive than a diesel generator, but it will not need to be refueled for eight years. A diesel generator burns about 0.4 liters per kWh, so a 5 MW generator would burn about 500 gallons liters per hour, or in dollars, it would be about $1500/hour. Over 8 years, that is about $100 million. If Westinghouse can get to the point of making one reactor for $20 million, they will have a huge market. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-working-with/licensing-activities/pre-application-activities/evinci.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-...
- killingtime74 2y ago
  I take your point on the economics, especially if transport costs of diesel fuel are high. It would mainly hinge on whether the site has viable wind/solar + battery options. On ships/arctic bases renewable is not viable. I was thinking security costs of 24/7 manned security which would probably not be needed for Wind/Solar farms. It would be the same costs for fossil fuel plants that's true.

atomic128 2y ago

Hacker News tends to be pro-solar, pro-wind, and anti-nuclear. Discussions on Hacker News tend to overlook the unreliable nature of intermittent solar and wind power sources. The hidden costs of solar and wind are also overlooked: the cost of land, the cost of transmission infrastructure, the cost of battery storage, the short lifespan of the hardware, the requirement for fossil fuel backup generators, etc. Here's Yann LeCun (Vice-President, Chief AI Scientist at Meta) describing the advantages of nuclear versus solar and wind in a different, larger-scale context: AI datacenters will be built next to energy production sites that can produce gigawatt-scale, low-cost, low-emission electricity continuously. Basically, next to nuclear power plants. The advantage is that there is no need for expensive and wasteful long-distance distribution infrastructure. Note: yes, solar and wind are nice and all, but they require lots of land and massive-scale energy storage systems for when there is too little sun and/or wind. Neither simple nor cheap. Link to LeCun's comment on X here, along with a discussion of why solar and wind are not enough: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41621097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41621097 The same is true on smaller scales.

moralestapia 2y ago
Also, plenty of locations where cooling is free. This will make AI OpEx almost negligible. In line with OpenAI's premise of making intelligence very cheap. Only issue but not a big one is latency, i.e. Starlink will become extremely valuable in the upcoming years.

foxyv 2y ago

Most of the security around nuclear reactors is to prevent disruption of critical power infrastructure and barring access to spent fuel rods. This design would need far less security since it is sealed and not a huge plant that would cut power to half the USA if destroyed. Stealing one of these would be pretty pointless. It would be far easier to get much more dangerous isotopes from one of the thousands of hospitals that use such things or a laboratory. The 20% enrichment is not enough to produce viable weapons either. Uranium enrichment has just gotten way too easy with new centrifuge designs. Applications are mostly stuff like Antarctic research projects and remote oil fields. Also, if it is approved for such uses, it could power a container ship saving huge amounts of money on diesel fuel which is about half their operating cost.

throwawayffffas 2y ago

You could have multiple reactors at the same site. Like 100 for example.

killingtime74 2y ago
That's true and would bring down the average cost a lot

credit_guy 2y ago

> Given the extensive security requirements for nuclear I can see a need for security, but I think power plants in general must be quite secure, otherwise a terrorist can waltz in, put a stick of dynamite under a boiler and boom, one gigawatt of electricity goes offline. > the cost of this reactor itself Westinghouse is quite tight-lipped about this reactor design. If you go to the NRC site with their application, most stuff is withheld from the public view [1]. However, they seem to have addressed the 2 big cost drivers of nuclear reactors. Their reactor does not need a high pressure vessel, and it has passive cooling, so that it can't melt down. The second part is kind of trivial. The square-cube law says that smaller reactors are more efficient at passive cooling, the smaller the better. That's one of the reasons the US Navy never had an accident with one of its hundreds of naval reactors. The no need for the high pressure vessel is quite unique. The cooling is done with liquid sodium, not with water. Water at high temperature needs to be kept under huge pressures to not boil, but liquid sodium does not have that problem. I think Westinghouse envisions that they will, at some point, be able to manufacture these reactors on an assembly line, and maybe build several per day. If they get to that point, then maybe a reactor will be more expensive than a diesel generator, but it will not need to be refueled for eight years. A diesel generator burns about 0.4 liters per kWh, so a 5 MW generator would burn about 500 gallons liters per hour, or in dollars, it would be about $1500/hour. Over 8 years, that is about $100 million. If Westinghouse can get to the point of making one reactor for $20 million, they will have a huge market. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-working-with/licensing-activities/pre-application-activities/evinci.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-...

killingtime74 2y ago
I take your point on the economics, especially if transport costs of diesel fuel are high. It would mainly hinge on whether the site has viable wind/solar + battery options. On ships/arctic bases renewable is not viable. I was thinking security costs of 24/7 manned security which would probably not be needed for Wind/Solar farms. It would be the same costs for fossil fuel plants that's true.