3 ms·

NuScale infamously failed to get their reactor funded in Utah (UAMPS and the CFPP), it was just too expensive. Costs kept rising, large utilities declined to s

by pfdietz 2mo ago

NuScale infamously failed to get their reactor funded in Utah (UAMPS and the CFPP), it was just too expensive. Costs kept rising, large utilities declined to sign up, and in the end those utilities remaining were going to hit the contractual off ramp so it was just cancelled. I have some links to minutes of municipal utility meetings in Idaho Falls that showed the wheels coming off (even though there was great local support for the effort.) Their design requires considerably more steel and concrete per MW(e) than a large conventional PWR power plant. You don't do civil construction in a factory, and that's where much of the cost is. Their design appears to have it roots in the (false) idea that what was holding back nuclear was perception of safety, rather than cost.

bryan0 2mo ago
> Their design appears to have it roots in the (false) idea that what was holding back nuclear was perception of safety, rather than cost. And why do you think they cost so much? Because people need to believe they are safe from catastrophic failure
- derriz 2mo ago
  Large scale civil engineering projects will always cost more than simply installing stuff that comes almost fully assembled from a factory (solar, wind, battery or small/medium gas turbines). Opex will always be much higher for a generation facility which requires 850 FTE specialist employees to operate (US average per plant) compared to the minimal requirements for on-site employees for utility scale solar or wind facilities. Generation tech which requires no fuel or hazardous waste handling and storage also has an obvious cost advantage. None of these factors have anything to do with “need to believe”.
  - bryan0 2mo ago
    I don't think I get your point. A project will not be approved and funded if the local population does not believe it is safe, so safety must be demonstrated through a variety of means, including some you mentioned. This is directly tied to the high costs involved. https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs: > To sum up, since the early 1970s, the cost of constructing nuclear power plants in the U.S. has been steadily rising. This can be traced to a constantly shifting regulatory environment, which has continuously changed plant design requirements, and added more and more safety features, which often were required to be implemented on plants under construction. The regulatory environment is partially a reflection of the fact that nuclear power and the risks of radiation had become increasingly controversial, and that early understanding of the likelihood of a nuclear plant accident was often inadequate.
    - derriz 2mo ago
      Nuclear in this millennium is not competing with nuclear or other tech from the 1970s - it’s competing with newer technologies (solar, wind, batteries and gas turbines) which do not require 5 to 10 year huge civil engineering works. All these alternative technologies benefit from mass production in factories. While civil engineering does not get cheaper over time - not just for nuclear plant but all large infrastructure construction. And that’s just capex - even if a nuclear plant could be built for free, the cost of operation (huge head count, fuel and waste handling), means it cannot compete with newer technologies. Indian Point shutdown years before end-of-life because it was too expensive to operate. Nuclear plants are large and complex and expensive to build and run. I’m not sure why it should be surprising that electricity generation technology has advanced sine the development of the PWR - it’s been more than half a century. The world has moved on from electricity generation using a huge steam engine attached to an alternator with a fiddly and complex firebox. It’s economics and newer technologies that have made nuclear power obsolete - not public opinion.
      - bryan0 2mo ago
        Oh ok, yeah I think we agree. the original quote I was responding to was "the (false) idea that what was holding back nuclear was perception of safety, rather than cost." I was simply trying to say that safety and cost are not independent. Safety is a massive reason why nuclear costs so much.
        pfdietz 2mo ago
        NuScale's putative safety improvement came from considerably larger cost. Safety and cost may not necessarily be related, but in NuScale's case they certainly were.
agarwaen163 2mo ago
Your point is moot, it's the plan with almost all SMRs other than like the Deep Fission type of lazy ideas. What about Valar Atomics?
agarwaen163 2mo ago
Your last point is entirely backwards and missed the scaling concept entirely. I suggest you watch a documentary on the Model T. The point being that these aren't civil projects once it's modular. The prices and material are what's being optimized. To compare to large RPVs and BWRs efficiency is idiotic as that's the only place they beat SMRs and the known downside to SMRs which is the point of scaling it. It has always been a regulatoryu issue. As given by the fact Valar has a microreactor currently running just to disrpove your thesis.
- pfdietz 2mo ago
  > The point being that these aren't civil projects once it's modular. But that's simply wrong. All the projects (except for silly microreactors which don't have a prayer of being competitive) involve substantial civil engineering.
reformdEngineer 2mo ago
Can you share the links? Would be interested to see! Thank you in advance
- pfdietz 2mo ago
  Here's one of the meatier ones (Feb. 2023). https://idahofallsidaho.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_02082023-1501 https://idahofallsidaho.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_0...

by pfdietz 2mo ago

bryan0 2mo ago

> Their design appears to have it roots in the (false) idea that what was holding back nuclear was perception of safety, rather than cost. And why do you think they cost so much? Because people need to believe they are safe from catastrophic failure

derriz 2mo ago
Large scale civil engineering projects will always cost more than simply installing stuff that comes almost fully assembled from a factory (solar, wind, battery or small/medium gas turbines). Opex will always be much higher for a generation facility which requires 850 FTE specialist employees to operate (US average per plant) compared to the minimal requirements for on-site employees for utility scale solar or wind facilities. Generation tech which requires no fuel or hazardous waste handling and storage also has an obvious cost advantage. None of these factors have anything to do with “need to believe”.
- bryan0 2mo ago
  I don't think I get your point. A project will not be approved and funded if the local population does not believe it is safe, so safety must be demonstrated through a variety of means, including some you mentioned. This is directly tied to the high costs involved. https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs: > To sum up, since the early 1970s, the cost of constructing nuclear power plants in the U.S. has been steadily rising. This can be traced to a constantly shifting regulatory environment, which has continuously changed plant design requirements, and added more and more safety features, which often were required to be implemented on plants under construction. The regulatory environment is partially a reflection of the fact that nuclear power and the risks of radiation had become increasingly controversial, and that early understanding of the likelihood of a nuclear plant accident was often inadequate.
  - derriz 2mo ago
    Nuclear in this millennium is not competing with nuclear or other tech from the 1970s - it’s competing with newer technologies (solar, wind, batteries and gas turbines) which do not require 5 to 10 year huge civil engineering works. All these alternative technologies benefit from mass production in factories. While civil engineering does not get cheaper over time - not just for nuclear plant but all large infrastructure construction. And that’s just capex - even if a nuclear plant could be built for free, the cost of operation (huge head count, fuel and waste handling), means it cannot compete with newer technologies. Indian Point shutdown years before end-of-life because it was too expensive to operate. Nuclear plants are large and complex and expensive to build and run. I’m not sure why it should be surprising that electricity generation technology has advanced sine the development of the PWR - it’s been more than half a century. The world has moved on from electricity generation using a huge steam engine attached to an alternator with a fiddly and complex firebox. It’s economics and newer technologies that have made nuclear power obsolete - not public opinion.
    - bryan0 2mo ago
      Oh ok, yeah I think we agree. the original quote I was responding to was "the (false) idea that what was holding back nuclear was perception of safety, rather than cost." I was simply trying to say that safety and cost are not independent. Safety is a massive reason why nuclear costs so much.
      - pfdietz 2mo ago
        NuScale's putative safety improvement came from considerably larger cost. Safety and cost may not necessarily be related, but in NuScale's case they certainly were.

agarwaen163 2mo ago

Your point is moot, it's the plan with almost all SMRs other than like the Deep Fission type of lazy ideas. What about Valar Atomics?

agarwaen163 2mo ago

Your last point is entirely backwards and missed the scaling concept entirely. I suggest you watch a documentary on the Model T. The point being that these aren't civil projects once it's modular. The prices and material are what's being optimized. To compare to large RPVs and BWRs efficiency is idiotic as that's the only place they beat SMRs and the known downside to SMRs which is the point of scaling it. It has always been a regulatoryu issue. As given by the fact Valar has a microreactor currently running just to disrpove your thesis.

pfdietz 2mo ago
> The point being that these aren't civil projects once it's modular. But that's simply wrong. All the projects (except for silly microreactors which don't have a prayer of being competitive) involve substantial civil engineering.

reformdEngineer 2mo ago

Can you share the links? Would be interested to see! Thank you in advance

pfdietz 2mo ago
Here's one of the meatier ones (Feb. 2023). https://idahofallsidaho.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_02082023-1501 https://idahofallsidaho.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_0...