Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Infernalism t1_j5ciixd wrote

Oh wow, a nuclear reactor project suddenly sees obscene time/cost overruns?

I. AM. SHOCKED.

Shocked, I say! This hasn't happened since the last time they tried to build a nuclear reactor in the US!

Who could have seen this coming???

17

Russell_M_Jimmies t1_j5cum5s wrote

Gosh it's almost as if when you stop trying to do something, you don't get any better at it.

28

paulfdietz OP t1_j5ha7ps wrote

And in fact you get worse, as the knowledge in the brains of your people degrades or walks out the door.

4

myne t1_j5d0zn6 wrote

Oddly, your never hear about the US submarine/carrier fleet having these problems.

Every couple of years they pump out a working, small reactor.

Is there something majorly different about designing a really small reactor vs a much larger one?

17

Infernalism t1_j5d3102 wrote

The reason for this is that the military is very experienced with building the smaller reactors. It also doesn't hurt that the reactors are remarkably small since they only need to power a single ship or sub.

There's also the reality that the military doesn't have to worry about expenses. They spend what needs to be spent.

In the civilian world, however, they're trying to build 'small' reactors that really aren't that small, and they keep trying to pitch them as 'cheap' to build. They're not.

Why? Because they need funding. That's it. Nuclear reactors, in the US, need decades of time to be built and decades more time before investors will see a ROI. That's a hard sell for anyone, so they pitch them as being cheaper than a regular plant. They undersell the costs and then start to come clean after a few years.

Could it be done quick and cheap? No. Time, money, quality. You get to choose two out of these three. You want quick with quality? That's going to cost you a ton of money. Quick and cheap? Low quality. Quality, with a cheap cost? That's going to take a fuckton of time.

19

wingnutf22 t1_j5dglh2 wrote

Those reactors are also not generally ones you want in civilian hands. Those reactors while still subcritical run a more enriched uranium mix that could be problematic if it were more common.

8

ukezi t1_j5et8n1 wrote

More enriched, it's 93% Vs about 3.5% used in normal reactors.

6

bitfriend6 t1_j5ditn5 wrote

>your never hear about the US submarine/carrier fleet having these problems.

Because it's only reported in like 3 magazines. The new Columbia Class is 50% over budget and it's budget could instead pay for free housing for all Americans for 10 years, college education for all prisoners, or a mars shot. Despite this it's approved because there's no debate regarding it, only like ~21 people want to dismantle the Navy's nuclear program and they are all fringe Republicans (and Bernie Sanders). For a more direct comparison: Republicans killed the X-33 when it was over budget, for the competing Lockheed product the F-35 which was also running over budget. We stopped hearing about that after Obama took office when it became uncool to criticize the military.

>Is there something majorly different about designing a really small reactor vs a much larger one?

yes because the supply chain doesn't exist, and what suppliers do exist are setup for more lenient military standards concerning fuel density and hazard level. Even then, it's the sort of huge government contractor that is impossible to easily monitor, there's no transparency, and all the workers are Unionized. It's big fat and slow compared to coal, gas or solar panels which are readily importable.

18

Cynical_Cabinet t1_j5dodnd wrote

That's because the military doesn't release the full costs of their reactors. Naval reactors are almost guaranteed to be even more expensive because that's how the navy works.

7

allenout t1_j5djtqm wrote

You can build a working small reactor, but can you build it so the energy is cost competive. On a ship, you need a small compact system with a lot of power output. You can't do that with wind.

3

gerkletoss t1_j5d40em wrote

Funny how this doesn't hsppen in South Korea

3

Infernalism t1_j5d7bz4 wrote

The South Korean government is in charge of their reactors.

Ours aren't.

5

gerkletoss t1_j5d7s9k wrote

Kinda? It's complicated. Anyway, that's more of an argument for changing regulation than against nuclear reactors.

3

Infernalism t1_j5d8ao0 wrote

You'll find that SKorean reactors are more safety-oriented than most US reactor models.

2

gerkletoss t1_j5d8u5b wrote

Yeah, that's what happens when you allow funding

1

Infernalism t1_j5d99po wrote

Well, that's called nationalization. Americans call that communism.

13

gerkletoss t1_j5d9hwf wrote

The Korean nuclear industry isn't really nationalized, but I take your point. Yes, many Americans are stupid about such things. No, this doesn't make me wrong.

4

Infernalism t1_j5d9vt0 wrote

Thing is, we want to have the benefits of a government-run and funded nuclear industry, just with less safety regulations and no government oversight.

We are, essentially, a stupid nation.

11

gerkletoss t1_j5dc7qy wrote

I think that's oversimplifying some things but not entirely wrong. Still doesn't make nuclear the problem. Stupid is the problem.

4

StumbleNOLA t1_j5laqiz wrote

The problem is we funded all nuclear power thru the DOD for decades so our reactor technology is optimized to generate bomb material not power.

1

MasterDew5 t1_j5eki3m wrote

TVA's reactors are all owned by the government and they cost far more to build than the private ones. This was decades ago, but the government hasn't gotten more efficient in that time.

3