Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by philwelch on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @11:44AM
(#31754752)
> Water pumps for nuclear reactor cooling systems, for example, are the most robustly engineered (and expensive) pumps ever built, as far as I know.
Which is not an issue with newer reactor designs, which are no less proven than grid storage.
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by dv_dt on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @12:27PM
(#31755398)
New reactor designs, even with closely regulated designs, are very unproven. The next gen French EDF design recently had some units come online, but they had to figure out some unexpected buildup in some byproducts. You are also validating more than the design, you are validating a manufacturing materials control in a very long term feedback cycle - which is generally terribly difficult for making improvements.
In comparison to something like grid storage where one can site, build and operate, in less time than the make a minor nuclear design correction. Grid storage can correct mistakes at very low cost and on a very rapid cycle compared to nuclear.
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by manicdee on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @12:39PM
(#31755577)
Grid storage is proven through dozens of working installations earning decent money for their operators, pushing gas peaker plants out of the market.
Newer reactor designs are well simulated but have zero real world implementation.
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by ncmncm on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @03:53PM
(#31758528)
Grid storage is as simple as E = mgh. We do that industrially, billions of times a day, worldwide, and have for centuries.
To cite uncertainty about storage is only to admit you have no argument.
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by scyzoryk_xyz on Thursday June 16, 2022 @01:45AM
(#31762786)
A relevant piece of information that could be attached to the San Onofre reactor argument is that we are talking about a 1st generation reactor, from the late 60’s.
Proponents of new nuclear solutions would argue that reactor design, which is today at 4th generation, has greatly evolved and improved in too many ways to count since the late 60’s.
The reason costs are high is not political, it's that the systems involved need to be over-engineered relative to say, a coal-fired power plant, where a breakdown or fire will create a big mess, but not a 100-year exclusion zone. Water pumps for nuclear reactor cooling systems, for example, are the most robustly engineered (and expensive) pumps ever built, as far as I know.
For example, California's decision to close the San Onofre reactor was mostly related to maintenance costs, as their steam generator system was shaking itself to pieces and had to be shut down due to the radioactive loop leaking into the non-radioactive steam generation system. The rational conclusion is that long-term maintenance of nuclear reactors is an expensive proposition, due to catastrophic failure modes:
https://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy-education/san-onof...