Hooray for Nuc Power!!!

[Ziggurat]

I saw nothing in the article which says costs will go down

"But the $500 million cost of the design and approval process, steep for a product with uncertain market appeal, is a major barrier."

That cost won't simply go down in the future: it won't exist in the future if this project works.

, or even that this is radically new technology. In fact, it's very similar technology to what is on nuclear-powered ships.

It's not as similar as you presume.

Nuclear-powered ships are actually designed to run most of the time at much lower than maximum power. The reasons for that are rather obvious: you want plenty of spare headroom to sprint if you need to. But that's exactly the WRONG model of operation for a power reactor connected to the grid. Since nuclear electric power costs are dominated by capital investments, not fuel costs, you want them running at 100% capacity for as much of the time as possible. These differences have large implications for reactor design, particularly in regards to lifespan and radiation wear. Furthermore, naval reactors are designed to be operated by people who undergo navy training and work under navy discipline. It isn't the same as civilian standards, nor is there any realistic prospect of raising civilian standards to navy standards. So the reactors must be inherently safer designs than the navy is able to tolerate.

Theoretically, standardized modular designs could reduce costs associated with approval of new designs, but this remains to be seen.

And the way to see is to try it.

 

[BenBurch]

We know for fact that standardizing designs lowers costs. The navy has ample proof of that.

 

[WildCat]

We know for fact that standardizing designs lowers costs. The navy has ample proof of that.

I have no issues with standardized designs, I'm just not sold on the mini-nuke idea.

 

[tyr_13]

"But the $500 million cost of the design and approval process, steep for a product with uncertain market appeal, is a major barrier."

That cost won't simply go down in the future: it won't exist in the future if this project works.



It's not as similar as you presume.

Nuclear-powered ships are actually designed to run most of the time at much lower than maximum power. The reasons for that are rather obvious: you want plenty of spare headroom to sprint if you need to. But that's exactly the WRONG model of operation for a power reactor connected to the grid. Since nuclear electric power costs are dominated by capital investments, not fuel costs, you want them running at 100% capacity for as much of the time as possible. These differences have large implications for reactor design, particularly in regards to lifespan and radiation wear. Furthermore, naval reactors are designed to be operated by people who undergo navy training and work under navy discipline. It isn't the same as civilian standards, nor is there any realistic prospect of raising civilian standards to navy standards. So the reactors must be inherently safer designs than the navy is able to tolerate.



And the way to see is to try it.

This is so true. Well, all of your post, but the highlighted part specifically. This is why I think co-products are an important improvement possibility for power generation in general, and nuclear power specifically. Also some sort of smart grid opt-in program for lower bills might help. Say a business agreeing to do electric intensive processes when the smart grid detects a low use time.

Some more forward thinking to create good policy now with regards to infrastructure can save a lot of cost and hassle later.