3 ms·

> If they build 15 individual projects instead of managing this as a single big project, yeah that is very ambitious Surely it would increase variance of outco

by OJFord 4mo ago

> If they build 15 individual projects instead of managing this as a single big project, yeah that is very ambitious Surely it would increase variance of outcomes, but the expectation is the same of each and overall? Agree it would be mad though. Seems already a bit mad not to standardise internationally on a rough blueprint, or the modular thing in the news occasionally, and just churn out basically the same thing everywhere as needed.

mixdup 4mo ago
Yeah I mean obviously each one would be managed on its own to an extent but one big problem we have in the US at least is that we build so few reactors that each one is bespoke. They may be based generally on certain designs but they will vary enough that operators and maintenance engineers have to train and be certified on each one, and that training and certification does not carry over to any other facility. Parts are bespoke and can't be used from one to another If Canada builds them all similar enough that you only need one simulation/training facility, parts can be used between all of them, engineers can move from one to the other, and otherwise they are as close to each other as possible they will get incredible economies of scale that we don't typically get in North America in this industry
- novok 4mo ago
  Could be a good way to kickstart a canadian nuclear industry that would expand into the US, exploiting the a big thing the US is bad at, coordinating infrastructure projects with multiple government groups, not making infrastructure builds incredibly overpriced and take an incredible amount of time and not being hyper litigious.
  - tranceylc 4mo ago
    Are you also Canadian? I only ask because I feel expensive and overdue infrastructure is already something we (canada) suck at
    - novok 4mo ago
      Vancouver vs. the bay area is my current example, or california HSR general, or the billion dollar pedestrian tunnel in new york, and just the general level of shabby of everything compared to canada in public infra at least. You have to realize that the dollar bill for equivalent infra in the USA is much, much higher even though it feels more expensive in canada relative to it's income
  - kspacewalk2 4mo ago
    Canada is not even a little bit better at the big thing, and it may be worse. Same ailment, basically. Better look to countries like Spain and Japan for inspiration on how to deliver very big projects on time and on budget.
drysine 4mo ago
>Seems already a bit mad not to standardise internationally on a rough blueprint How do you evolve the design then?
- upbeat_general 4mo ago
  Same way you do for planes, cars, etc. You have long(ish) life-cycles and some pieces that can be independent (e.g., same turbine engine on several plane models).
  - padjo 4mo ago
    Brings its own risks. See the 737max debacle. Now imagine that but causing a massive radiation leak and requiring all your power stations to be be put offline while a fix is found.
    - mixdup 4mo ago
      Nothing about the 737 MAX situation had anything to do with the fact that it was standardized and every plane wasn't bespoke. That is a weird thing to compare this to. You could absolutely still screw it up if you were designing each reactor from scratch every time
      - ta20240528 4mo ago
        Huh, a lot on the 737 Max situation was due to standardisation. Boeing didn't want the time, expense, and hassle of certifying (= standardising) a new narrow-body aeroplane, so they continued to reuse the FAA type certificate (= standardised design) of the original 737 from 1966. This meant they had to keep, inter alia, the short landing gear, which in turn made the wings lower to the ground, which forced them to position the new big engines ahead of the CG, which forced them to add the faulty MCAS computer, which killed all those people. Admittedly the decision to use just a single sensor on said MCAS was due to systematic, decades long corruption and emasculation of the FAA.
        4mo ago

by OJFord 4mo ago

mixdup 4mo ago

Yeah I mean obviously each one would be managed on its own to an extent but one big problem we have in the US at least is that we build so few reactors that each one is bespoke. They may be based generally on certain designs but they will vary enough that operators and maintenance engineers have to train and be certified on each one, and that training and certification does not carry over to any other facility. Parts are bespoke and can't be used from one to another If Canada builds them all similar enough that you only need one simulation/training facility, parts can be used between all of them, engineers can move from one to the other, and otherwise they are as close to each other as possible they will get incredible economies of scale that we don't typically get in North America in this industry

novok 4mo ago
Could be a good way to kickstart a canadian nuclear industry that would expand into the US, exploiting the a big thing the US is bad at, coordinating infrastructure projects with multiple government groups, not making infrastructure builds incredibly overpriced and take an incredible amount of time and not being hyper litigious.
- tranceylc 4mo ago
  Are you also Canadian? I only ask because I feel expensive and overdue infrastructure is already something we (canada) suck at
  - novok 4mo ago
    Vancouver vs. the bay area is my current example, or california HSR general, or the billion dollar pedestrian tunnel in new york, and just the general level of shabby of everything compared to canada in public infra at least. You have to realize that the dollar bill for equivalent infra in the USA is much, much higher even though it feels more expensive in canada relative to it's income
- kspacewalk2 4mo ago
  Canada is not even a little bit better at the big thing, and it may be worse. Same ailment, basically. Better look to countries like Spain and Japan for inspiration on how to deliver very big projects on time and on budget.

drysine 4mo ago

>Seems already a bit mad not to standardise internationally on a rough blueprint How do you evolve the design then?

upbeat_general 4mo ago
Same way you do for planes, cars, etc. You have long(ish) life-cycles and some pieces that can be independent (e.g., same turbine engine on several plane models).
- padjo 4mo ago
  Brings its own risks. See the 737max debacle. Now imagine that but causing a massive radiation leak and requiring all your power stations to be be put offline while a fix is found.
  - mixdup 4mo ago
    Nothing about the 737 MAX situation had anything to do with the fact that it was standardized and every plane wasn't bespoke. That is a weird thing to compare this to. You could absolutely still screw it up if you were designing each reactor from scratch every time
    - ta20240528 4mo ago
      Huh, a lot on the 737 Max situation was due to standardisation. Boeing didn't want the time, expense, and hassle of certifying (= standardising) a new narrow-body aeroplane, so they continued to reuse the FAA type certificate (= standardised design) of the original 737 from 1966. This meant they had to keep, inter alia, the short landing gear, which in turn made the wings lower to the ground, which forced them to position the new big engines ahead of the CG, which forced them to add the faulty MCAS computer, which killed all those people. Admittedly the decision to use just a single sensor on said MCAS was due to systematic, decades long corruption and emasculation of the FAA.
      - 4mo ago