7 ms·

Would be extremely interesting to the the $/MWh for the deal to understand the viability. Otherwise similar to the NuScale deal which fell through last autumn.

Would be extremely interesting to the the $/MWh for the deal to understand the viability. Otherwise similar to the NuScale deal which fell through last autumn. A PPA like agreement which then only kept rising until all potential utilities had quit the deal. All honor to Kairos if they can deliver, but history is against them. Let’s hope they succeed. > NuScale has a more credible contract with the Carbon Free Power Project (“CFPP”) for the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (“UAMPS”). CFPP participants have been supportive of the project despite contracted energy prices that never seem to stop rising, from $55/MWh in 2016, to $89/MWh at the start of this year. What many have missed is that NuScale has been given till around January 2024 to raise project commitments to 80% or 370 MWe, from the existing 26% or 120 MWe, or risk termination. Crucially, when the participants agreed to this timeline, they were assured refunds for project costs if it were terminated, which creates an incentive for them to drop out. We are three months to the deadline and subscriptions have not moved an inch. https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-fake-customer-and-a-major-contract-in-peril-cast-doubt-on-nuscales-viability/ https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-...

credit_guy 2y ago
> All honor to Kairos if they can deliver, but history is against them. History is not really against them. Our current reactors (mainly pressurized water reactors) are the way they are because Admiral Rickover determined that PWRs are the best option for submarines. He was not wrong, but civilian power reactors are not the same as the reactors powering submarines. PWRs are expensive mainly because of the huge pressure inside the reactor core, about 150 times higher than the atmospheric pressure. For comparison, a pressure cooker has an internal pressure about 5 times higher than the atmospheric pressure, and such a cooker can explode with a pretty loud bang. The Kairos Hermes reactor design is based on a design that was tested in the '60s, the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment [1]. While such a reactor can be used to burn thorium, Kairos decided to go with the far more conventional approach of burning U-235. The reactor operates at approximately regular atmospheric pressure. This should reduce considerably the construction costs. Of course, there are unknowns. While the world has built thousands of pressurized water reactors, it has built maybe 10 molten salt reactors. For example one quite unexpected effect in the MSRE was the enbrittlement of the reactor vessel caused by tellurium, which shows up as a fission product when U-235 burns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a very conservative organization, and they don't have much experience with molten salt reactors because nobody has. It took them 6 years to give NuScale an approval for a pressurized water reactor, design that they knew in and out. My guess is that they will not give Kairos an approval without at least 15 years of testing. But Google's agreement with Kairos is quite crucial to keep this testing going. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
- cyberax 2y ago
  > The Kairos Hermes reactor design is based on a design that was tested in the '60s, the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment MSRs are a costly distraction. They are not viable without literally hundreds of billions in research and development money. That's why all the MSRs startups are failing long before they even start the licensing process. > For example one quite unexpected effect in the MSRE was the enbrittlement of the reactor vessel caused by tellurium, which shows up as a fission product when U-235 burns. It was not unexpected. The _main_ issue with MSRs is that they have to contain fluoride salts that release elemental fluorine radicals as a result of radiolysis. So the reactor vessel walls will be eaten up by them, rather rapidly. Especially when reactors are scaled up to a level that makes them practical. And then you have all the fission byproducts that literally include almost all the Periodic Table.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    The Kairos design does not dissolve the fuel in the salt.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      OK, that's interesting. And it's far better than MSRs, but it still exposes fluoride salts to radiation. It also is a pebble bed reactor, so it'll have all the problems of pebble beds: cracking pellets, difficulty in fuel reprocessing, more nuclear waste, etc. But yes, this design might be actually feasible for small reactors. But I bet that it won't be cheaper and it'll be impossible to scale to levels approaching PWRs.
      - conradev 2y ago
        The theory, at least, is that making SMRs in a factory allows for a steeper and more sustainable learning curve > Both Hermes and ETU 3.0 will be built using modular construction techniques, with reactor modules fabricated in Kairos Power's facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which will be shipped to Oak Ridge for assembly. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/work-begins-on-first-us-gen-iv-reactor https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/work-begins-on-f...
Moldoteck 2y ago
https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ high chances it'll be more expensive than ap1000 overall /kwh
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  That entire report is an exercise in selectively choosing data to misrepresent renewables and present nuclear power in the best possible light and wishful thinking. To the degree that the prominent "renewables vs. nuclear" graph they keep repeating on the webpage and figure 6 in the report is straight up misleading. This is the source: What is different about different net-zero carbon electricity systems? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666278721000234 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266627872... Utilizing storage costs from 2018 and then of course making the comparison against the model not incorporating any hydrogen derived zero carbon fuel to solve seasonal problems. Which is todays suggestion for solving the final 1-2% requiring seasonal storage in the late 2030s. Something akin to todays peaker plants financed on capacity because they run too little to be economical on their own, but zero carbon. Can be hydrogen or biofuel derived. We will know in 10 years time. Would they have chosen the ReBF model the difference between made up optimal nuclear power and 2018 renewables would be: $80-94/MWh and $82-102/MWh. It is essentially: Nukebros writes reports for nukebros, they confirm their own bias. Simply an attempt to justify another massive round of government subsidies on nuclear power.
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    copypaste I see))

credit_guy 2y ago

> All honor to Kairos if they can deliver, but history is against them. History is not really against them. Our current reactors (mainly pressurized water reactors) are the way they are because Admiral Rickover determined that PWRs are the best option for submarines. He was not wrong, but civilian power reactors are not the same as the reactors powering submarines. PWRs are expensive mainly because of the huge pressure inside the reactor core, about 150 times higher than the atmospheric pressure. For comparison, a pressure cooker has an internal pressure about 5 times higher than the atmospheric pressure, and such a cooker can explode with a pretty loud bang. The Kairos Hermes reactor design is based on a design that was tested in the '60s, the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment [1]. While such a reactor can be used to burn thorium, Kairos decided to go with the far more conventional approach of burning U-235. The reactor operates at approximately regular atmospheric pressure. This should reduce considerably the construction costs. Of course, there are unknowns. While the world has built thousands of pressurized water reactors, it has built maybe 10 molten salt reactors. For example one quite unexpected effect in the MSRE was the enbrittlement of the reactor vessel caused by tellurium, which shows up as a fission product when U-235 burns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a very conservative organization, and they don't have much experience with molten salt reactors because nobody has. It took them 6 years to give NuScale an approval for a pressurized water reactor, design that they knew in and out. My guess is that they will not give Kairos an approval without at least 15 years of testing. But Google's agreement with Kairos is quite crucial to keep this testing going. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

cyberax 2y ago
> The Kairos Hermes reactor design is based on a design that was tested in the '60s, the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment MSRs are a costly distraction. They are not viable without literally hundreds of billions in research and development money. That's why all the MSRs startups are failing long before they even start the licensing process. > For example one quite unexpected effect in the MSRE was the enbrittlement of the reactor vessel caused by tellurium, which shows up as a fission product when U-235 burns. It was not unexpected. The _main_ issue with MSRs is that they have to contain fluoride salts that release elemental fluorine radicals as a result of radiolysis. So the reactor vessel walls will be eaten up by them, rather rapidly. Especially when reactors are scaled up to a level that makes them practical. And then you have all the fission byproducts that literally include almost all the Periodic Table.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  The Kairos design does not dissolve the fuel in the salt.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    OK, that's interesting. And it's far better than MSRs, but it still exposes fluoride salts to radiation. It also is a pebble bed reactor, so it'll have all the problems of pebble beds: cracking pellets, difficulty in fuel reprocessing, more nuclear waste, etc. But yes, this design might be actually feasible for small reactors. But I bet that it won't be cheaper and it'll be impossible to scale to levels approaching PWRs.
    - conradev 2y ago
      The theory, at least, is that making SMRs in a factory allows for a steeper and more sustainable learning curve > Both Hermes and ETU 3.0 will be built using modular construction techniques, with reactor modules fabricated in Kairos Power's facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which will be shipped to Oak Ridge for assembly. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/work-begins-on-first-us-gen-iv-reactor https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/work-begins-on-f...

Moldoteck 2y ago

https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ high chances it'll be more expensive than ap1000 overall /kwh

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
That entire report is an exercise in selectively choosing data to misrepresent renewables and present nuclear power in the best possible light and wishful thinking. To the degree that the prominent "renewables vs. nuclear" graph they keep repeating on the webpage and figure 6 in the report is straight up misleading. This is the source: What is different about different net-zero carbon electricity systems? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666278721000234 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266627872... Utilizing storage costs from 2018 and then of course making the comparison against the model not incorporating any hydrogen derived zero carbon fuel to solve seasonal problems. Which is todays suggestion for solving the final 1-2% requiring seasonal storage in the late 2030s. Something akin to todays peaker plants financed on capacity because they run too little to be economical on their own, but zero carbon. Can be hydrogen or biofuel derived. We will know in 10 years time. Would they have chosen the ReBF model the difference between made up optimal nuclear power and 2018 renewables would be: $80-94/MWh and $82-102/MWh. It is essentially: Nukebros writes reports for nukebros, they confirm their own bias. Simply an attempt to justify another massive round of government subsidies on nuclear power.
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  copypaste I see))