Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #74888
| Message-ID | <68d1d3e6@news.ausics.net> (permalink) |
|---|---|
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
| Subject | Re: The "Standards" Game |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.misc, alt.comp.os.windows-11 |
| References | (5 earlier) <mis486Fcg7U1@mid.individual.net> <10ac80j$2nuve$1@dont-email.me> <10ac8lq$2nkob$2@dont-email.me> <68d087a6@news.ausics.net> <10ar9d9$2a86g$1@dont-email.me> |
| Date | 2025-09-23 08:55 +1000 |
| Organization | Ausics - https://newsgroups.ausics.net |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 22/09/2025 00:17, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> On 16/09/2025 18:50, Paul wrote: >>>> While every quanta of nuclear is worth something, it's a pretty slow >>>> way to achieve a "step change in output". If there was a real BEV mandate, >>>> you'd never get there with a forest of SMR and holes-in-the-ground and >>>> cooleo-tunnels. As it is, I doubt we can keep up with the "retirement rate" >>>> of the existing reactors. >>> >>> In fact if a given SMR is type approved, they can be kicked out of >>> factories at a one a week basis if the demand is there. >> >> I'm sure they're easier to "type approve" in some countries like >> China and Russia. Who is kicking them out once a week in those >> markets? >> >>> It's no worse that e.g, a Boeing aircraft. >> >> Do naval nuclear reactors cost less than Boeing's military >> aircraft? >> > I would not be surprised. > What costs inh building a reactyor is nothing more nor less than te > amount of peperwork that has to be filled out to get it approved at > every stage of te build. A reactor is in reality not much harder nor > more expensive to build that a coal furnace in terms of parts that go > into it. But to get the ticks on the paperwork the quality of those parts needs to be much higher than for a coal furnace, which means more expensive materials and processes. >> I never have much luck finding real numbers since it seems nobody >> likes to talk about it publicly, although using nuclear power for >> a naval ship has been estimated for the US congress in 2008 to add >> $600-800 million to the cost of building it: >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/RL33946_%28IA_RL33946-crs%29.pdf >> > > That is in fact pretty good for a reactor. Rolls-Royce SMRs are > projected to cost > around ?1.8 billion per unit for the first few built, with costs > expected to decrease with further deployment due to factory construction > and standardization. > > That's for units about ten times larger than a typical ship reactor - > 480MW - > And about 1/3rd the cost of a large reactor built as a 'one off' > > Amortizing over a 60 year life with realistic build times and cost of > capital , profit and decommissioning that makes the electricity > profitable at around 8-10c a unit. > > compared with three times that or more for a full renewable system > incorporating battery stabilisation, extended grid systems and gas > backup. Not to mention decommissioning back to green field. But if the estimated numbers for SMRs are true, why now and not 60 years ago? Commercial companies have been building reactors for militaries and research organisations all that time, they could have started pumping out SMRs in the 1960s if it were commercially viable. I can accept that technology's changed to allow much lower construction costs and/or higher outputs, but what exactly? The nuclear energy industry is built on decades of broken promises, so without a proper explaination it's obvious to assume SMRs are just more of the same - under-quoted and late (if ever) delivered. >> The Russians have presumably "type approved" one of their >> icebreaker reactors for SMR use since they've had two working as a >> power station on a barge since 2019: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLT-40 >> > Russians dont do approvals. They just build the fucking things, steal > the money and hope they dont go bang. Or if they do that its a long way > from Moscow and St Petersburg. Indeed, and yet _they_ can't even build them to a deadline. They planned to make seven of those floating SMRs by 2015, and so far they've only got that one, for which construction of the reactors began all the way back in 2007. >> I'm not sure if any western company has even got that far, yet the >> Russians still haven't followed that up with another one even >> though they're apparantly busy building eight reactors to an >> improved design: >> > Rolls Royce has built many reactors for nuclear submarines. Yes, like the company that built the Russian ones. > And they have built many gas turbines > And they have built instrumentarium for nuclear power stations. Oh dear, yes they're supplying them for Hinkley Point C: https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2020/25-11-2020-rr-to-supply-bibloc-pressure-transmitters-to-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-reactors-in-uk.aspx Which isn't exactly a shining example of how the nuclear energy industry stays on time and on budget. I see that was meant to be ready this year, and at half the cost, oh well. > They are well able to build a small nuclear reactor, although its likely > the nuclear company will be spun out in order to separate its investment > - high risk and very high return - from their traditional business of > manufacture and supply of jet engines and their spares. A high risk investment indeed, I'd say. A good stock for the people also investing in the various fusion start-ups, some of which claim they'll have working fusion reactors to sell well before Hinkley Point C is completely finished sometime after 2030. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RITM-200 >> >> Unless one of these SMR companies can explain the breakthrough >> they've made which changes the rules for how quickly and cheaply >> one of these reactors can be built, I'm highly skeptical. Where >> I've looked they all seem to explain exceptionally little of the >> manufacturing details, so I suspect it's all bluff. But I'd like >> to be surprised. >> > It is very very simple. > > There are three basic reasons why SMRs can be made much cheaper,. > > 1. The first and most important one is that they are small enough to be > made in a factory on a production line like a jet engine or aircraft, > and therefore that the design will be stable, and type approved so that > every power station does not have to wade through the same paperwork > every time. > > 2. The second one is less important but still a valuable contribution to > cost reduction. Below a certain size, it is possible to arrange for all > the decay heat following a SCRAM (emergency shutdown) to be dissipated > by convection only, thus eliminating the need for the emergency pumps > whose failure cost Fukushima its ability to contain the heat. This > simplifies the design considerably. And makes it much safer as well. > > 3. Because the units are relatively small, they can hopefully be sited > much nearer the centres of demand. And because they are run at maximum > power continuously, any grid links will be nearly 100% utilised. This is > in massive contrast to remote wind turbines or solar farms where the > grid connections are long, expensive and only fully used when the > renewable energy peaks. Yep, but those all applied decades ago, why only now does it make sense in a commercial environment? > In addition the fact that the power is generated by spinning turbines > and generators means there is no need for expensive batteries to > stabilise the mains frequency and avoid blackouts like the Iberian > peninsula suffered recently. > > Overall the *system* cost should be between 2 and 4 times cheaper than > any renewable based solution and comparable with fossil fuel. The trouble with the comparison to renewable and fossil fuel power is that people already build with those, so we know what they actually cost in the real world. Figures for SMRs just have to be trusted, and seeing as they come from the same industry that brought us projects like Hinkley Point C, who would trust them? I suspect "SMR" is largely just a re-branding exercise designed so that people _don't_ think of projects like Hinkley Point C. > In terms of ship borne reactors, a consortium of major carriers has > already determined that provided they were allowed to operate, nuclear > powered container ships would overall be cheaper than today's bunker > fuel powered ones. > > https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/partnership-to-develop-nuclear-power-for-shipping I'll believe that when I see it too, and yes I know it's been done before, but it didn't work out then. Once again I ask why now? Besides the SMR branding, what makes nuclear power 2.0 different to nuclear power 1.0 from the last century? -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: The "Standards" Game not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-22 09:17 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-22 11:46 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-22 16:05 -0400
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-23 00:07 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-23 03:03 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-23 21:03 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 13:35 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-23 15:23 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 17:30 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-23 18:03 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-23 18:29 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:17 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-24 18:43 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:15 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:13 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-24 03:06 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-26 23:28 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-09-22 18:17 -0600
Re: The "Standards" Game Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-23 21:23 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 13:37 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:21 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-23 14:31 -0700
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 01:29 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-24 02:59 +0000
Submarine testing. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-24 21:54 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-23 21:39 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-24 01:00 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 05:05 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 01:29 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 01:28 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 05:06 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-24 22:26 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-28 22:52 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-28 12:00 -0400
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 17:34 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-28 18:29 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-29 08:54 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-28 22:51 -0400
Opening a submarine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-24 22:02 +0200
Re: Opening a submarine Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-24 15:26 -0700
Re: Opening a submarine rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-24 23:31 +0000
Re: Opening a submarine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:16 +0200
Re: Opening a submarine The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 09:53 +0100
Re: Opening a submarine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:23 +0200
Re: Opening a submarine The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:20 +0100
Re: Opening a submarine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 22:26 +0200
Re: Opening a submarine The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 10:35 +0100
Re: Opening a submarine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-26 13:34 +0200
Re: Opening a submarine The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 12:36 +0100
Re: Opening a submarine rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-25 17:23 +0000
Re: Opening a submarine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 22:31 +0200
Re: Opening a submarine rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 04:18 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-23 16:44 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 11:24 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-23 08:55 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-23 00:07 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 12:17 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 11:58 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-24 09:57 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 01:35 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-09-24 12:51 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 05:06 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 11:41 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-09-24 13:49 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 15:21 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-09-25 10:10 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 10:43 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-09-25 13:16 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 14:09 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-09-26 22:01 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-26 09:35 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 10:56 +0100
Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-24 22:12 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-24 15:20 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 10:11 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-09-25 07:25 -0400
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 12:58 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-25 08:11 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-09-25 13:19 -0400
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:00 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 04:53 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 11:10 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 19:22 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-26 20:23 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-26 17:34 -0400
Re: Nuclear plants. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-26 16:36 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:06 -0400
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 10:51 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 18:50 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-26 13:43 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 13:04 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-26 20:24 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:29 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-09-25 12:53 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:48 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:26 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 20:44 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 10:21 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-26 13:49 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 13:06 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-25 08:17 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 18:54 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-25 18:07 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 20:48 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 04:33 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 10:26 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 07:45 +0100
OT: Re: Nuclear plants. Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 10:09 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-27 02:30 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-27 10:16 +1000
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-25 13:51 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 04:47 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:25 -0400
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:06 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 04:56 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-25 22:52 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 06:47 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 11:24 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-26 09:34 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 11:23 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 11:22 +0100
Re: OT: Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 12:52 +0100
OT: Re: Nuclear plants. Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 10:32 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 10:00 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:33 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:47 +0100
OT: Re: Nuclear plants. Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 09:45 +0100
Re: OT: Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 12:36 +0100
csiph-web