TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

27 out of 31 reactors being built since 2017 are Russian or Chinese designs

40 pointsby aleyanalmost 3 years ago

6 comments

pixl97almost 3 years ago
Article headline is<p>&quot;Nuclear power can play a major role in enabling secure transitions to low emissions energy systems&quot;<p>Title is contained in the article under the following paragraph<p>&gt; “However, a new era for nuclear power is by no means guaranteed. It will depend on governments putting in place robust policies to ensure safe and sustainable operation of nuclear plants for years to come – and to mobilise the necessary investments including in new technologies. And the nuclear industry must quickly address the issues of cost overruns and project delays that have bedevilled the construction of new plants in advanced economies. <i>As a result, advanced economies have lost market leadership, as 27 out of 31 reactors that started construction since 2017 are Russian or Chinese designs</i>.”
评论 #31962630 未加载
Havocalmost 3 years ago
Less interested in what country &amp; more in what generation. If its reasonably modern stuff...who cares.<p>As best as I can tell the Chinese are ahead of the rest anyway so if something has to be built it might as well be that
credit_guyalmost 3 years ago
The nuclear fission landscape in the US is actually pretty exciting.<p>The leader is of course NuScale, which already obtained the NRC approval for their proposed reactor design. Their technology is the classical pressurized water reactor, but in a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) form factor of about 78 MW per module. Their first contract is for a 6-module power plant. The envisioned technological advantage is simply the fact that manufacturing many small reactors on an assembly line is going to be much cheaper than manufacturing large ones on site. They claim a $45-60 &#x2F; MWh Levelized Cost of Energy, which is really competitive. Even if they are off by a factor of 2, it&#x27;s still going to be competitive.<p>Next ones can be found at the link [1] provided by the Department of Energy. Here&#x27;s my summary:<p>1. Sodium-cooled fast reactor (by Terrapower). Currently the Russians operate the largest sodium cooled reactors, the BN-600 and BN-800 [2], which, as the name implies provide 600 and 800 MW of electricity for a total of 1.4 GW. The main advantage of sodium-cooled reactors is that their fission reaction uses fast neutrons rather than slow (or thermal) neutrons. With fast neutrons the nuclear waste is reduced by orders of magnitude, while at the same time the fraction of U235 that undergoes fission increases, for a significant increase of overall efficiency. The negative is that sodium may burn, but sodium burning in air is not the violent, compared with sodium burning (or rather exploding) in water.<p>2. Triso fuel [3]. These are poppy seed-sized particles that have Uranium in the middle surrounded by 3 layers of some sort of ceramic. They can withstand temperatures of about 1800 deg Celsius for hundreds of hours. In other words, you can drop them in lava or in molten iron, and they are fine. Triso fuel is also envisioned to used medium-enriched Uranium (up to 20% U-235, instead of the usual 4.5% used in the current generation of reactors in the US). When Uranium is more highly enriched, the interval between refueling increases, which reduces operating costs. In the extreme, the naval reactors use weapons-grade Uranium (about 95% enriched), so they need to be refueled either zero or one time during their operating life. With 20% enrichment, you can envision intervals of 5 years between refueling (vs the current 18-24 months).<p>3. Xe-100 pebble-bed gas cool reactor. This is again an SMR with virtually the same capacity as the NuScale one (76 MW). It will use Triso fuel. It uses Helium as a coolant rather than water, as the current reactors in the US do. There are 3 advantages of Helium. Water is a liquid at room temperature, and you prefer the coolant to not undergo phase transition if possible. But you also want the coolant to absorb as much heat from the fission core as possible, and for water this is difficult, because water boils at 100 deg Celsius. To increase this temperature you increase the pressure. A lot. Like, a lot, a lot. 150 times higher than the atmospheric pressure, or 10 times higher than in a pressure cooker. With Helium you don&#x27;t have that problem, because Helium is a gas to begin with. Also Helium cannot absorb neutrons and so it does not become radioactive when it goes through the core. Finally, the pressurized water in a PWR can only be heated up to about 550 deg Celsius, while the Helium can be heated up to much higher temperatures, resulting in higher efficiency of the thermal part of the power plant.<p>4. Salt-cooled reactor, by Kairos Power. Instead of using water, one can use a molten salt as a coolant. Regular table salt (NaCl) is a very stable substance, but Fluoride salts are even stabler, and Kairos (and many other startups) use such salts. Such a reactor is completely unrelated to a sodium-cooled reactor, it is much more similar to a regular PWR reactor (it uses slow neutrons). The big advantage is that it does not need the huge pressures of a PWR reactor. Kairos intends to use Triso fuel.<p>5. Molten chloride fast reactor (by Terrapower). This is the same company as for point 1 above. Terrapower is famous for having Bill Gates as one of its investors. This reactor design is very different from the one already mentioned. The nuclear fuel is dissolved in the coolant. It is replenished on a continuous basis.<p>There are a few more projects that the DoE mentions, but I think already these are quite exciting enough.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energy.gov&#x2F;ne&#x2F;articles&#x2F;infographic-advanced-reactor-development" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energy.gov&#x2F;ne&#x2F;articles&#x2F;infographic-advanced-reac...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;BN-800_reactor" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;BN-800_reactor</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energy.gov&#x2F;ne&#x2F;articles&#x2F;triso-particles-most-robust-nuclear-fuel-earth" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energy.gov&#x2F;ne&#x2F;articles&#x2F;triso-particles-most-robu...</a>
LatteLazyalmost 3 years ago
The fundamental problems with nuclear can&#x27;t be solved by redesigning them. They are waste management (a political problem), cost, risk (a societal problem). You cant design any of those away. We tried. We failed.
评论 #31963636 未加载
评论 #31962443 未加载
评论 #31962610 未加载
评论 #31962677 未加载
ncmncmalmost 3 years ago
It would suffice not to build any more of them. Then it would be 100%, with somebody else still wasting money on those ramshackle overpriced contraptions.<p>What we desperately need to fend off looming climate catastrophe is for every dollar spent on energy to displace the largest possible amount of carbon emissions. We get several times as much such displacement by spending that dollar on renewables. And, we get that displacement immediately, not ten or more years on, after spending as much more on coal in that time as would pay the entire capital cost of the renewables.<p>And, we do not then spend a great deal more on servicing that equipment every year, but can instead use that to build out more carbon emissions displacing equipment.<p>Starting a new nuke brings climate catastrophe nearer.
AtlasBarfedalmost 3 years ago
&quot;Nuclear power can play a major role in enabling secure transitions to low emissions energy systems&quot;<p>No it can&#x27;t, it has fundamentally lost the LCOE war with Solar and Wind, and those are still improving in cost.<p>The steady drumbeat of &quot;please save the fundamentally uncompetitive nuclear industry&quot; is getting annoying.<p>This is an industry that, probably due to its regulation, is used to lobbying and astroturfing to try to sustain political relevance.<p>But it has no economic relevance.<p>China is getting an MSR&#x2F;LFTR power planet up soon. That will be fascinating to watch, but just doesn&#x27;t work in free markets. And you can&#x27;t even legally research them in the US. I would recommend research and development around next gen nuclear, but all the regulations in the US are so poisoned we&#x27;d never accomplish anything radical that would be needed to make nuclear competitive.
评论 #31962080 未加载
评论 #31963326 未加载
评论 #31963257 未加载