Hacker News
points by chickenbig 2 days ago | 0 comments
> Nuclear takes far too long (>10 years) to build.

Latency and throughput are not the same thing. 10 years to the first result, and less once the planning and construction process is streamlined.

[–] mschuster91 2 days ago
> 10 years to the first result, and less once the planning and construction process is streamlined.

You can't streamline your way out of the need to have to build containments capable of surviving a fully laden Airbus A380 crashing into it from 43.000 ft.

I live near a NPP, these buildings are insanely tough and you need a lot of time, a lot of resources and a lot of people to build them - especially the people part is a huge constraint, construction already isn't an attractive career and the demographic bomb is hitting the trades hard.

[–] chickenbig 2 days ago
> You can't streamline your way out of the need to have to build containments capable of surviving a fully laden Airbus A380 crashing into it from 43.000 ft.

Most of the plane is not a problem for 6ft of concrete and a steel liner. Planes are built to just about hold together. The main thing to worry about are the jet engine cores.

[–] mschuster91 2 days ago
> Most of the plane is not a problem for 6ft of concrete and a steel liner. Planes are built to just about hold together.

It's still 575 tons of material crashing into the containment at a speed near at or even over the speed of sound. That is a lot of energy to dissipate, on top of that 250 tons of burning jet fuel is a lot of thermal energy that can quickly eat away at steel.

[–] chickenbig 2 days ago
> That is a lot of energy to dissipate

The NRC report states "with regard to the effects of shock associated with aircraft impact, WEC demonstrated that these shock loadings are less than those resulting from a design basis seismic event"

> burning jet fuel is a lot of thermal energy that can quickly eat away at steel

Hmmmm, it does have to get past the concrete. "for the fire aspect of AIA ... WEC demonstrated that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.150 are met."

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1101/ml110170004.pdf

[–] Zigurd 2 days ago
The two most recent reactors built in the US used a modern modular design that was supposed to reduce the chances of construction delays. They weren't late because of planning or permitting.

The modularity was supposed to enable offsite construction of modules in a controlled environment and make it more reliable. What happened in real life is that some modules needed rework and that was only discovered after delivery. That massively fucked the schedule.

[–] chickenbig 2 days ago
The AP1000 was an incomplete design, plus the aircraft impact assessment change happened. Even the Chinese had trouble constructing it.

But now there is a design, and the Chinese construct CAP1000/CAP1400 on a regular basis.

[–] mschuster91 2 days ago
> But now there is a design, and the Chinese construct CAP1000/CAP1400 on a regular basis.

Yeah. The Chinese. A country well known for cutting corners ("chinesium steel" has its name for a reason).

I wouldn't trust a Chinese made design. If they do, it's their choice.

[–] acdha 2 days ago
That’s a pretty massive assumption at the end: you really don’t want to cut corners with safety and unless the government can simply ignore residents, very few people are willing to live near a nuclear plant so you have to anticipate delays or higher transmission costs.

While all of that’s happening, you’re guaranteed to be producing more carbon emissions before anything can be displaced.