I'm always looking for ways to repeat the mantra: expensive nuclear is nowhere good enough. Recently, I'm been playing with some 3D bar charts to try and make this point. Did not come out nearly as well as I had hoped; but, for what it is worth, here are some graphs based on the
Less expensive nuclear could be realized with less onerous regulatory hurtles especially in terms of construction of the new gen fail safe nuclear reactors and SMRs
What would a nuclear power plant look like whose did cost was $500 or less per kw while still being safe enough to practically not kill anyone? Ignore the current regulations. I recall an experimental Army reactor they ran without any shielding and put the control about 200 ft away through cables. It was safe enough to run for a year.
In other words, we need to start showing what could practically be built and be good enough safe enough for people. You mentioned a reactor like this in a previous article that was built far below the cost Rickover thyit could be built.
All we have to do is go back to the plants that were brought on line in the late 1960's. They cost about $1000/kW in today's money, and they have harmed no member of the public. See also what happened when ThorCon told the Koreans to ignore the word "nuclear".
More expensive does not mean safer. In the NRC system, the money is spend on procedure and complexity. Beyond a basic level, more paperwork distracts from safety.
The same thing is true of redundancy. The system favors fragile, complex designs
over simple, robust designs.
The extra paperwork is not there for safety. It's there to prove that the regulator is doing his job, and to cover his rear when things go wrong. The next thing you know the quality of the paperwork becomes the focus, rather than the quality of the job. See
By tacking on layers of backup and assuming independent failures, you can make whatever bogus target probability the regs call for. But you also add new failure modes and factorially more interdependencies, And you explode the number of individual failures which put the system in a non-normal state. That's not safe. See Flop book for much longer discussion.
So you are in agreement with the basic approach Last Energy is taking. https://www.lastenergy.com/ I am rooting for them to succeed. If they can, it will illustrate the true cost. The more you write the more clear it is that the NRC has to be abolished and replaced with a completely different agency.
But I could be wrong. We need to let a 1000 flowers bloom and see who wins. The government's job is to set up the playing field for that competition. Period.
Interesting. I became interested in nuclear because I lived in the Philippines with 7000 islands. On most of them 20MW would be an enormous amount. In Manila multiple gigawatt reactors would be helpful. I am interested in reactors that can load follow to balance the grid like holos gen. Or that can be a ship power plant. With inexpensive fuel the holos gen system could 100% replace natural gas peaking plants.
Vogtle 3 is the only US NPP off line today, everyone else is on line near 100% power. They have been off line for days. Yet there are folks insisting we need to be building more of these AP1000s.
Less expensive nuclear could be realized with less onerous regulatory hurtles especially in terms of construction of the new gen fail safe nuclear reactors and SMRs
This was cool. I geeked out a little.
What would a nuclear power plant look like whose did cost was $500 or less per kw while still being safe enough to practically not kill anyone? Ignore the current regulations. I recall an experimental Army reactor they ran without any shielding and put the control about 200 ft away through cables. It was safe enough to run for a year.
In other words, we need to start showing what could practically be built and be good enough safe enough for people. You mentioned a reactor like this in a previous article that was built far below the cost Rickover thyit could be built.
David,
All we have to do is go back to the plants that were brought on line in the late 1960's. They cost about $1000/kW in today's money, and they have harmed no member of the public. See also what happened when ThorCon told the Koreans to ignore the word "nuclear".
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/what-is-nuclears-should-cost
More expensive does not mean safer. In the NRC system, the money is spend on procedure and complexity. Beyond a basic level, more paperwork distracts from safety.
The same thing is true of redundancy. The system favors fragile, complex designs
over simple, robust designs.
The extra paperwork is not there for safety. It's there to prove that the regulator is doing his job, and to cover his rear when things go wrong. The next thing you know the quality of the paperwork becomes the focus, rather than the quality of the job. See
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/nuclear-quality-the-ap1000-modules
By tacking on layers of backup and assuming independent failures, you can make whatever bogus target probability the regs call for. But you also add new failure modes and factorially more interdependencies, And you explode the number of individual failures which put the system in a non-normal state. That's not safe. See Flop book for much longer discussion.
So you are in agreement with the basic approach Last Energy is taking. https://www.lastenergy.com/ I am rooting for them to succeed. If they can, it will illustrate the true cost. The more you write the more clear it is that the NRC has to be abolished and replaced with a completely different agency.
Not exactly. I'm not a fan of Small Modular Reactors, let alone Tiny Reactors. We need Big Modular Reactors, the biggest we can build in assembly line fashion. https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/shipyard-production-of-nuclear-power
But I could be wrong. We need to let a 1000 flowers bloom and see who wins. The government's job is to set up the playing field for that competition. Period.
Interesting. I became interested in nuclear because I lived in the Philippines with 7000 islands. On most of them 20MW would be an enormous amount. In Manila multiple gigawatt reactors would be helpful. I am interested in reactors that can load follow to balance the grid like holos gen. Or that can be a ship power plant. With inexpensive fuel the holos gen system could 100% replace natural gas peaking plants.
Like Indonesia 😃
Vogtle 3 is the only US NPP off line today, everyone else is on line near 100% power. They have been off line for days. Yet there are folks insisting we need to be building more of these AP1000s.