Well we’re talking about SMRs here, so there are still questions like “when will a feasible design actually be ready for pilot testing” and “would electricity from SMRs ever be economically feasible against storage and renewables by the time they are ready for volume production?”
I’m glad people are still researching it, but it may turn out to be a dead end (or only be economic if heavily subsidised)
It's supposed to be in production by "mid 2030s" according to the article, which is ~10 years away, so this question may become rather acute! Or, most likely, it quietly faceplants and the 2030 UK government has to decide whether to HS2 it.
Small reactors are probably less likely to be delivered on time and on budget and work as expected than big ones.
Generally small projects work better than big ones, not just for nuclear power. Everything from IT systems to railways (the latter being particularly a sore point here in NE England)
Someone posted a paper to HN that investigated the reasons for overruns quite thoroughly, from when the first reactors were built. Fifty pages or so. As I recall, none of the major reasons were related to reactor size.
There were issues such as having ignored the risk of an earthquake; when it became clear that earthquakes can damage reactors, the reactors that were being built needed late engineering changes that led to cost overruns. Things like that. But nothing related to reactor size.
(Note that this was about cost overruns. Not about the costs that stayed at the projected level.)
Oh good grief. At least buying renewables from the Chinese government doesn't get them interfering in your domestic politics, a major advantage over the US system.
A perfectly good nuclear power plant was less than 60km from New York City, and provided 2 GW of electricity. It bothers me a lot that it was shut down . It was replaced with natural gas power plants.
High voltage DC power line can transfer electricity over long distances with little loss. So it is preferable to build a nuclear power station far away from densely populated area. The proposed plan near my home was close to a lake, as compared to near a running river or sea. That raised more concerns. Thankfully it stayed as plan and had been forgotten. I googled and could not find it.
My home is safe now. But I still think nuclear power in its current state is not a responsible option. The spent fuel remains dangerous after hundreds or thousands years.
The chart has Hinkley Point as "being defuelled", while Hinkley Point C is still under construction.
To me, that's the real test of nuclear power: can it actually be switched on, on time, and on budget? Too many projects fail that.
At least building at the Wylfa site avoids the need for grid upgrades.
Well we’re talking about SMRs here, so there are still questions like “when will a feasible design actually be ready for pilot testing” and “would electricity from SMRs ever be economically feasible against storage and renewables by the time they are ready for volume production?”
I’m glad people are still researching it, but it may turn out to be a dead end (or only be economic if heavily subsidised)
It's supposed to be in production by "mid 2030s" according to the article, which is ~10 years away, so this question may become rather acute! Or, most likely, it quietly faceplants and the 2030 UK government has to decide whether to HS2 it.
Small reactors are probably less likely to be delivered on time and on budget and work as expected than big ones.
Generally small projects work better than big ones, not just for nuclear power. Everything from IT systems to railways (the latter being particularly a sore point here in NE England)
> Small reactors are probably less likely to be delivered on time
Do you mean the small reactors are more likely to be on time? I ask because you follow up with this and I'm not sure your position.
> Generally small projects work better than big ones
Yes, it was as stupid typo. They are more likely to be delivered on time and work as expected.
Someone posted a paper to HN that investigated the reasons for overruns quite thoroughly, from when the first reactors were built. Fifty pages or so. As I recall, none of the major reasons were related to reactor size.
There were issues such as having ignored the risk of an earthquake; when it became clear that earthquakes can damage reactors, the reactors that were being built needed late engineering changes that led to cost overruns. Things like that. But nothing related to reactor size.
(Note that this was about cost overruns. Not about the costs that stayed at the projected level.)
They’re using Rolls Royce’s SMR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_SMR
Explains why Westinghouse are trying to get the US government to complain.
Oh good grief. At least buying renewables from the Chinese government doesn't get them interfering in your domestic politics, a major advantage over the US system.
I was a huge fan of nuclear power, until I heard a plan to build one 50 km from my home.
Why?
A perfectly good nuclear power plant was less than 60km from New York City, and provided 2 GW of electricity. It bothers me a lot that it was shut down . It was replaced with natural gas power plants.
High voltage DC power line can transfer electricity over long distances with little loss. So it is preferable to build a nuclear power station far away from densely populated area. The proposed plan near my home was close to a lake, as compared to near a running river or sea. That raised more concerns. Thankfully it stayed as plan and had been forgotten. I googled and could not find it.
My home is safe now. But I still think nuclear power in its current state is not a responsible option. The spent fuel remains dangerous after hundreds or thousands years.
Odd.