[HN Gopher] Nuclear startup Oklo gets thumbs-down from regulators ___________________________________________________________________ Nuclear startup Oklo gets thumbs-down from regulators Author : orangebanana1 Score : 177 points Date : 2022-01-14 18:06 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.canarymedia.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.canarymedia.com) | winphone1974 wrote: | The article is certainly bias towards the move fast and break | things mentality being applied to these nuclear startups. It | basically calls the NRC a dinosaur that's blocking any future | nuclear capacity, which in my mind IS a big party of its mandate. | Is this canary media and industry outlet? This reads like an | editorial | microdrum wrote: | Real science investors with access to high level nuclear talent | never seemed to think much of this company. | | Its financing seems to be Koch Industries, through a strange sort | of PR/VC arm they have. | | The denial is substantive. I am pro fission but, erm, would | rather go with Westinghouse. | philipkglass wrote: | Here's the denial letter to Oklo directly from the Nuclear | Regulatory Commission: | | https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2135/ML21357A034.pdf | | All Oklo application documents linked to from this top level | page: https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/aurora- | oklo.ht... | | While searching World Nuclear News for background about Oklo I | ran into this story: | | "Oklo to power bitcoin mining machines" | | https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Oklo-to-power-Bi... | | This is dubious on a couple of levels. Micro-reactors like Oklo | (1.5 megawatt electrical output per unit, compared to 1000+ | megawatts for Generation III reactors currently being built) | would be hard pressed to produce electricity suitable for an | industry that seeks globally-cheapest prices. Announcing a | "20-year commercial partnership" to supply 100 units to a mining | firm, before they've built a _single_ unit, is optimistic to the | point of recklessness. | | The Oklo founders [1], Caroline Cochran and Jacob DeWitte, have | no industrial experience, according to their LinkedIn profiles. | They met at MIT while TA'ing and went straight from graduate | school to founding Oklo. | | I just don't think that Oklo knows what they are doing. | | [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/28/oklo-planning-nuclear- | micro-... | gloriana wrote: | Hand picked by Sam Altman. Lol | PaulHoule wrote: | They want to put this in the middle of nowhere in Idaho. It | wouldn't be worth running transmission lines to connect a | reactor this size to the grid. | | You could put the bitcoin mine right next to the facility and | do something useful with the electricity. It really should be | coupled to some real sink so they can see the dynamics of the | reactor + powerset + consumer. | anonporridge wrote: | Before people jump down your throat with pseudo ethical pearl | clutching, just replace "do something useful" with "generate | income". | | You don't have to personally believe that bitcoin mining is | "useful" to acknowledge that it certainly can generate real | money to offset the cost of a remote experiment like this | one. | Tarrosion wrote: | Ultimately I do not know whether Oklo and/or their founders | know what they're doing, though I hope for the sake of the | planet that they do and they succeed. | | But calling them out for having no nuclear industry experience | seems somewhere between aggressive and wrong. Both founders | have graduate degrees in nuclear science from MIT and have been | in the nuclear industry _at Oklo_ for the better part of a | decade. A quick LinkedIn search also shows that Oklo employs | other people with nuclear industry experience, including at the | NRC itself. | | If someone had a PhD from MIT in machine learning and then | worked at Google doing machine learning for 8 years, would you | say that person has no machine learning industry experience? At | face value such a person would seem like a plausible expert! | philipkglass wrote: | I mean that they've never been at an organization that | actually builds reactors or reactor components. Building | working machines, at scale, at a price that customers can | afford, is hard even if you're not in a heavily regulated | industry. I'd also be skeptical of the chances for a pair of | people to successfully move from graduate research in solar | technology at MIT to commercializing a new solar cell design | through their startup. | readams wrote: | There aren't any organizations that build reactors though. | You'd have to go to France or China. | bigthymer wrote: | Doesn't Westinghouse build nuclear reactors? | | https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/new- | plants/engineering-c... | readams wrote: | They're hoping to get to build some. Not in the US of | course. | philipkglass wrote: | They're building reactors in the state of Georgia: | | https://info.westinghousenuclear.com/blog/shaping-the- | future... | | Other companies that manufacture nuclear components in | the US include Areva, General Electric, and Framatome. | But Westinghouse is the only company that has a new | reactor design currently under construction in the US. | count wrote: | The US is still fielding new nuclear submarines and | aircraft carriers. So, they ARE building new power | plants, just...not commercial ones. | jjoonathan wrote: | Hah, it's the opposite of "you need 5 years of experience | in a 3 year old technology": they need X years of | experience in an industry that has been dead for the last | 40. | rfdave wrote: | Looking at the number of failed kickstarters for physical | objects that are multiple orders of magnitude less | complicated than a nuclear power plant with new | technology might be instructive. | sbierwagen wrote: | China's been building new reactors, poach some of those | project managers. | beders wrote: | > I hope for the sake of the planet that they do and they | succeed. | | The planet doesn't need nuclear. It just needs a concerted | push to roll out renewables on a bigger scale and invest into | promising long/medium term energy storage solutions (like | various gravity storage solutions) | | The opportunity costs for nuclear are just way too high. | | https://www.oneearth.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy- | is... | e_tm_ wrote: | If they started an ML company that applied for grants and | failed to supply the required information, it would be | acceptable to inquire about their expertise. | | Academic experience does not equal Industry experience. | notjustanymike wrote: | Nuclear powered bitcoin mining. How is the human race so smart, | yet simultaneously so so dumb? | roughly wrote: | We're more properly Homo callidus, not Homo sapiens. | Antipode wrote: | If it displaces fossil fuel based Bitcoin mining that's still | a net gain in my book. | arkitaip wrote: | Our intelligence is dwarfed by our unlimited greed. | echelon wrote: | Sometimes you have to attach yourself to dumb ideas to sell | the smart idea. There's a good chance these folks don't care | about cypto at all and are just using this to obtain further | investment and survive another day. | blhack wrote: | Can we please just take some remote area of Nevada, and let these | people do whatever they want? We were literally blowing up | nuclear weapons out there. | | If that doesn't work, howabout an oil platform (how symbolic!), | or an old nuclear missile silo? | bigbillheck wrote: | > oil platform (how symbolic!) | | I can think of no better place for stray radioactive | contamination to end up than in the ocean. | worik wrote: | > We were literally blowing up nuclear weapons out there. | | ...which resulted in some catastrophic health outcomes. | Animats wrote: | The classic Rickover quote, from the 1950s: | | _An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the | following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is | small. (3) It is cheap. (4) it is light. (5) It can be built very | quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little | development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf | components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not | being built now._ | | _On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by | the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It | is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of | development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is very | expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its | engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is | heavy. (8) It is complicated._ | | _The tools of the academic designer are a piece of paper and a | pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be | erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he | wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone | sees it. The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante._ | | "Little that's happened in the 60 years since suggests Rickover | was wrong." -- Kennedy Maize, 12/30/2014, Power Magazine | contributing editor. | bobthepanda wrote: | My favorite pithy quote is "In theory, it works in practice; in | practice, it works in theory." | sklargh wrote: | Go fast and break things is a suboptimal approach to nuclear | fission related enterprises. | hnburnsy wrote: | > no nuclear plant that has submitted an application since the | formation of the NRC in 1975 has yet commenced operation. | | Hasn't stopped the US Navy (including land-based ones), I wonder | what their application\regulatory process is like... | | "All U.S. Navy submarines and supercarriers built since 1975 are | nuclear-powered by such reactors." | | I think Oklo wanted to put their reactor at INL (Idaho National | Laboratory), where the Navy has a land-based reactor. | DennisP wrote: | The NRC doesn't regulate the Navy's reactors. For a while, | Flibe Energy planned to work directly with the military, to | bypass the NRC. And the Navy's ship-based reactors at least are | classified. | sbierwagen wrote: | Naval reactors always run on highly enriched uranium, to make | the core lighter and more compact. It's easy to make a gun-type | nuclear weapon out of HEU. Not a big problem on a military | ship, problematic in a civilian context. | jjoonathan wrote: | > no nuclear plant that has submitted an application since the | formation of the NRC in 1975 has yet commenced operation. | | Wait, what? I knew that reactor construction stopped around then. | I hear it alluded to often enough, e.g. "US grid could have been | 100% low-CO2 power by now if we had just kept up the pace of | deploying nuclear instead of stopping in the 80s." Still, I | thought the story was a messy mix of regulations hitting at the | same time as city growth was topping off and interest rates were | skyrocketing. | | If the NRC just says "no" to everything, that's a big deal. Is | there more to the story? | kevinstubbs wrote: | I was confused by the wording of that as well! I guess it would | have helped if they put "yet" at the end of the sentence. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | Below your quote, it says that NuScale has gotten approval. | It's not that nobody has gotten approved, it's that nobody has | commenced operation. | petermcneeley wrote: | Sophons at work. | jessaustin wrote: | Maybe the sophons should have paid more attention to Chinese | literature? | topspin wrote: | > If the NRC just says "no" to everything, that's a big deal. | Is there more to the story? | | The NRC doesn't say "no" to everything; AP-600/1000 designs | were approved, an SMR design has been approved. The NRC is | entirely willing to approve competent design efforts. | | The most candid explanation of the attitude of the NRC was | offered by former chairman Dale Klien and his "no bozos" | baloney test; there is no room in nuclear power for hucksters | and the NRC won't indulge them. This rejection is evidence that | this mentality still prevails; failure to respond to NRC | questions about reactor design in a timely manner is bozoery | and this is the correct outcome. | | The Oklo proposal isn't some generational variant on PWRs. They | are proposing a fast breeder. You can't go to the NRC with a | fast breeder application on anything less than a multi-billion | dollar R&D operation designed to positively thrill the NRC with | actually epic levels of competence and preparation and expect | to be approved, and that is exactly how it should be. | Symmetry wrote: | Reminds me of that FDA reviewer who refused to approve any | drugs on the grounds that risk couldn't be completely | eliminated. | WithinReason wrote: | A common solution to the Trolley Problem. | vpribish wrote: | got a link? | lvs wrote: | You're misreading the claim. It's not that they have not given | any approvals, it's that those reactors did not go on to reach | operating status. That means these are more likely to be | business problems, not regulator problems. | richk449 wrote: | I don't think it makes sense to talk about the business of | building nuclear reactors as something separate from | regulator problems. The two are very tightly intertwined. | | Four AP1000s are operating in China right now, demonstrating | that under different regulatory regimes, the plants can be | built. | philipkglass wrote: | The NRC said "yes" to 4 new AP1000 reactors in Georgia and | South Carolina more than 10 years ago. They were all supposed | to be completed years ago. The South Carolina project was | abandoned after cost and schedule blowouts. The Georgia project | continues to chug forward despite similar cost and schedule | blowouts. Here's a brief synopsis of the Georgia project: | | _On August 26, 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) | issued an Early Site Permit and a Limited Work Authorization. | Limited construction at the new reactor sites began, with Unit | 3 then expected to be operational in 2016, followed by Unit 4 | in 2017, pending final issuance of the Combined Construction | and Operating License by the NRC. These dates have since | slipped to 2022 and 2023 for Units 3 and 4, respectively._ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... | ellyagg wrote: | Right, but one interpreation of this fact is that they set | the bar for compliance too high, so it's almost impossible to | finish a reactor in a financially feasible way. | | Unfortunately, there seems to be no way for our society to | overcome the apparent moral high ground that nuclear skpetics | hold. Nuclear disastors are too good at capturing the | imagination and all a skeptic has to say is "you can never be | too safe." | | Meanwhile, we claim that our reliance on fossil fuels is a | disastor, but if it's not enough of a disastor to compel us | to make nuclear regulatorily viable, how much of a disaster | can it really be? | PaulHoule wrote: | The South Carolina reactors were abandoned. Vogtle looks on | track to spin up this year. Vogtle was held up a long time | because the index reactor of the type in China was held up | while the factories were taking a while to figure out how to | make the parts. | | In so far as a water reactor could be practical (awful | economics of the steam turbine and steam generators) the | AP1000 looks pretty good. | jjoonathan wrote: | Thanks for the context! | | Yeah, that syncs up better with my intuition: disasters plus | bad economic timing killed the industry in the 80s and it | hasn't gotten back on its feet because big projects are hard | enough _with_ momentum and the industry has to start over | from zero. | | Here's hoping they can get back on their feet! | ethbr0 wrote: | Westinghouse Electric Company (the reactor manufacturer) | took over construction management in 2015 after the first | constructor botched schedules and costs. Westinghouse | subcontracted to Fluor. In 2016, adding Bechtel. | | In 2017, Westinghouse declares Chapter 11 bankruptcy from | construction losses, and the final owner Southern Company | reselects Bechtel as the construction manager. | | Current operational date looks like 3Q 2022, and on track. | | tl;dr - Don't allow megaproject management experience to | atrophy. The US military learned this (see: how the Navy | builds carriers and nuclear subs). Have a prime and a | secondary. Rotate. And, for god's sake _keep the pipeline | full_. Skills atrophy and knowledge is forgotten. | WithinReason wrote: | See this chart: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St... | | Edit: | | Apparently they approved NuScale's Small Modular Reactors: | | _NuScale spent over $500 million and more than 2 million labor | hours to compile the information needed for its design | certification application._ | renewiltord wrote: | Each of the words there happens to be significant. | | - plant: plants that had reactors first approved earlier have | since had reactors approved that will commence operation soon | (Vogtle is the classic) | | - commenced operation: designs exist that have been approved | but haven't commenced operation | | One could argue that the NRC only approves commercially | unviable designs or something like that, I suppose. Or that we | have just as many plants as we need and we just need more | reactors. Or that the general stance of the public has shifted | away from nuke. | keewee7 wrote: | Anti-nuclear lobbyists and demagogues have infiltrated the | regulatory bodies in the US and Europe. | cinntaile wrote: | The NRC has approved several designs over the years. It's | always a good idea to doublecheck what people say, even if it | confirms your bias. | barney54 wrote: | No worries. That's only 47 years. Not too long in terms of new | energy technologies. | pfdietz wrote: | What stopped the first nuclear buildout in the US was a | combination of things. One is that the 7%/year growth in | electricity demand suddenly moderated. This caught some | utilities by surprise; if they had many NPPs in process they | were in for pain (WPPSS went bankrupt). Another is the passage | of PURPA in 1978, which started to open the grids to non- | utility power. Cogeneration started to take off then. Any | industrial activity that needed heat could now drive a | combustion turbine and sell some power at low marginal cost, | using the waste heat for their need. There were also so | cogeneration-in-name-only non-utility plants that were mostly | just to make power. | | All this made large, new, expensive nuclear plants difficult to | justify. TMI was just the icing on the cake. | | The more recent "nuclear renaissance" died because natural gas | become very cheap (and a combined cycle NG power plant costs | $1/W to build; a factor of 10 cheaper than a nuclear plant) and | because nuclear construction was more expensive than promised | (bye, Westinghouse). | slaw wrote: | Why Oklo doesn't try to build reactor in a country with less | regulation burden? Mexico? | PaulHoule wrote: | I don't think it's a bad reactor but I looked at the application | and it wasn't a good application. (The NRC says the same) | | There was a large amount of hand-wringing about the risk of | avalanches and other natural disasters that were extremely low | probability. | | They were skimpy on interesting details about the reactor such as | "What do you do if the sodium coolant catches on fire?" (e.g. | sodium burns in water, sodium burns in air, sodium burns in | _carbon dioxide_ ) There are good answers to that in the U.S. and | Russian experience. They don't draw on that experience to show | they can solve it. | | If they fix the application and submit it again it could get | approved. | hangonhn wrote: | Is there a reason why most molten salt reactors chose sodium? | There's got to be a good reason to pick it given all its | negatives (i.e. it burns in air, water, etc.). | PaulHoule wrote: | Sodium has great thermal conductivity and runs at high power | density. | | Fast reactors need a large load of fuel (often high | enrichment) to attain a critical mass. High power density | helps pay for the fuel. It also means the reactor is smaller | and the capital cost goes down compared to, say, a lead | cooled reactor. | | If you get fuel damage the most biologically dangerous | fission product is iodine. The iodine reacts with the coolant | to form NI salt, that salt dissolves in the sodium. Dangerous | iodine isotopes decay in a few weeks. An experimental reactor | melted down in the suburbs of LA in the 1950s and they never | saw the iodine because it stayed put and it decayed in place. | | Sodium reactors can run at high temperatures compared to | water reactors. In the 1970s it was assumed that sodium | reactors were attached to steam turbines and it was assumed | fast reactors would cost more than thermal reactors, even | though the performance of the steam turbine improves at high | temperature. | | Modern thinking is that a closed-cycle gas turbine is 10% the | size of a steam turbine and the same for the heat exchangers | so a high temperature reactor could beat the LWR for capital | cost and be competitive with other power sources. A sodium | reactor is a good match for a CCGT. | DennisP wrote: | I can tell you know this but just to clarify, sodium and | lead don't moderate the neutrons like water does (i.e. slow | them down), so you can have a fast reactor, which means you | can fission your U238 and transuranics instead of throwing | them away as nuclear waste. | PaulHoule wrote: | You can run a water reactor with a much faster spectrum | if you have more fuel and less water. | | Shippingport was able to breed on the Thorium-U233 cycle. | | Plutonium breeding could also be accomplished with a | water reactor, possibly with two separate reactors in the | fuel cycle to tune up the use of odd and even numbered | isotopes. See | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_water_reactor | | The trouble with it is that water has limited ability to | remove heat so you are going to have a large amount of | fuel tied up creating a critical mass producing | relatively little water. That makes it hard to build up | the fuel inventory for a fleet of breeders and economics | are even worse than today's water reactors. | pfdietz wrote: | Lead _does_ slow down sufficiently fast neutrons, by | inelastic nuclear scattering. But this has a threshold | (0.57 MeV); below that energy it hardly affects neutron | energy at all. | pfdietz wrote: | The source term for cesium is more important than iodine | over the long term, isn't it? What does cesium do in liquid | sodium? | DennisP wrote: | Someone else replied with reasons for sodium, just want to | mention that molten salt reactors are not sodium reactors. | Sodium catches fire in water and air, salt is the stuff on | your kitchen table. A molten salt reactor has nothing that | could cause a chemical explosion. | kingkawn wrote: | Low-probability is not enough to wave away concerns when it | comes to planning nuclear power | csee wrote: | What? Depends how low the probability is and the magnitude of | the worst case we're talking about. | sam0x17 wrote: | Yes, but focusing on the astronomically low probability | scenarios while failing to discuss much higher probability | scenarios is a bad look. | tptacek wrote: | Is it? Those astronomically low-probability scenarios have | a track record of creating real-world catastrophes. | amluto wrote: | Fukushima was a power failure. Sure, am improbable | disaster caused the power failure, but the issue was | still a power failure. They should haven't been able to | handle it and couldn't. | PaulHoule wrote: | The power failure is not "low probability", it is the | dominant failure mode that happens somewhere around 1 in | 1000 to 1 in 10,000 reactor years. | | Reactors were licensed in the 1970s based on an entirely | wrong model which saw the dominant failure mode being the | pressure vessel bursting. Laymen have a totally wrong | point of view about that, they think a pressure cooker | really has the metal burst and go off like a bomb, really | the seal breaks and you get sprayed with superheated | steam which is dangerous enough. Pressure vessels burst | because the chemicals eat them from the inside out but | for every pressure vessel that bursts thousands of | storage tanks get sucked in. | | After TMI the model was updated to recognize "station | blackout" as the #1 risk. | sgjohnson wrote: | Fukushima currently has a body count of 1 and the city is | perfectly habitable. | | It was also basically the worst case scenario that could | happen to that reactor design. | | The tsunami and the earthquake killed 20000 for a scale. | duped wrote: | Only because the high probably scenarios are handled | safely... | throwaway894345 wrote: | This is pretty straightforward survivorship bias, i.e., | you don't hear about the astronomically low-probability | scenarios which don't result in real-world catastrophes | (consider every building, bridge, etc which _hasn 't_ | collapsed). | | We have to balance that against the millions of annual | fossil fuel deaths (tens of thousands die each year just | in the US and just due to coal pollution | https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-other- | reason-...) and the cliff toward which climate science | tells us we're careening. | donio wrote: | Natural disasters are not astronomically low probability | scenarios, they happen all the time. Astronomically low | probability would be something that is unlikely to happen | during the entire lifetime of the planet. | sam0x17 wrote: | No, but an avalanche in a flat area is a lot less likely | than, say, "what if the coolant runs out" and it seems | they were missing some basic handling of these sorts of | scenarios while still waxing poetic about things like | avalanche contingency plans. | idealmedtech wrote: | This is a great assessment of the response by the NRC. The | operating phrase to focus on is "without prejudice," which in | this context means "just fix the problems and try again." | | We applied for a direct to phase 2 SBIR in 2020 and were | thoroughly denied, mostly due to fixable errors in our | application that we made because we put it together ourselves | and had never applied for a grant before. After involving some | consultants and the relevant institutions, we got a much lower | impact score and are likely to receive the grant soon. | | Moral of the story: you can't fake regulatory experience, and | regulatory applications require specialist knowledge to put | together correctly. | | I wish them all the best in their resubmission! | dmoy wrote: | Congratulations on (hopefully!) getting a phase 2 approved, | that can be a breath of life for a lot of smaller companies. | Animats wrote: | Sodium-cooled reactors have a long and troubled history. | | * Sodium Reactor Experiment (Leak, minor sodium explosion, | decommissioned)[1] | | * Monju Nuclear Power Plant (Sodium fire, never worked | properly, decommissioned)[2] | | There's even been a sodium fire at a solar plant, one of those | big focused mirror systems. | | Many of these new reactor designs are based on complex | arguments that the worst-case accident doesn't require a huge, | expensive secondary containment vessel capable of containing a | major accident. That's a tough sell, since Chernobyl didn't | have a containment vessel and Fukushima's reactors had ones | that were too small. On the other hand, Three Mile Island had a | big, strong containment vessel, and in that meltdown, it held, | containing the problem. In all three accidents, the actual | accident was worse than the design maximum credible accident. | | The NRC is right to be skeptical of weak containment designs. | | It's frustrating. The reactor designs that have worked reliably | for long periods are very simple inside the radioactive portion | of the system. Sodium reactors had leaks and fires. Pebble bed | reactors had pebble jams. Helium gas-cooled reactors had leak | problems. Molten salt reactors include a radioactive chemical | plant. So nuclear power is stuck with water as a working fluid. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant | speedgoose wrote: | In France too they had a troubled history. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphenix | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadarache | pfdietz wrote: | France has recently given up entirely of fast reactors, | mothballing their proposed new program. | | https://www.powermag.com/france-scraps-fast-nuclear- | reactor-... | | In addition to be bad news for fast reactors, this also | means France does not see nuclear being a major factor in | avoiding global warming (a nuclear powered world using | burner reactors would run out of uranium very quickly, or | would need to tap vast new sources at dubiously low cost.) | DennisP wrote: | Not all MSRs have the radioactive chemical plant, just the | thorium-fueled ones. Several MSR companies are working on | uranium-fueled versions; e.g. Terrestrial Energy, where the | reactor core is a sealed can that gets swapped out every few | years. | trenchgun wrote: | I am a fan of the can. | hairytrog wrote: | Here's some footage of Monju - pretty scary: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRJGHWbIxC0 | PaulHoule wrote: | EBR-II and FFTF were 100% successful in the USA. Russia has | also had very good experience with fast reactors. Sodium | fires are a problem, but fires happen in industrial | facilities all the time, you just detect them and then you | put them out. | | Monju had many things wrong with the design, it was a loop- | type reactor that nobody is talking about building anymore. | Also it was nowhere near adequate from a seismic perspective | it is kinda shocking they were allowed to build it at all. | | Water reactors have no future for the same reason nobody has | built a coal plant since 1980. The steam turbine and | associated heat exchangers are unacceptably large and capital | intensive compared to modern fossil fuel power plants based | on gas turbines. (Look at how huge the steam generators are | for the PWR) | | Even if the construction problems were solved for the LWR, | the economics will not work, you are better off capturing the | carbon from a fossil fuel gas turbine plant and pumping it | underground. | | For nuclear power to be competitive we have to develop closed | cycle gas turbine powersets. The 1970s model was that a fast | reactor would be more capital intensive than an LWR but with | the CCGT advanced reactors could be possibly be competitive | -- if we can develop the powerset and reactors that run at | high enough temperatures (not water) to support the powerset. | yourapostasy wrote: | _> There are good answers to that in the U.S. and Russian | experience._ | | What are your personal favorites of what those good answers | are? One write up I found [1] doesn't go into much engineering | details, and I find similar high-level descriptions elsewhere. | | This reminds me of a documentary I once saw about what seemed | to me a completely balls-to-the-wall experimental lab (the best | kind) studying the earth's magnetic field by rotating a 12+ ton | ball of molten sodium. | | The way they solved the fire question was by suspending dewars | of liquid nitrogen above the ball of death metal. The only way | I could think of to improve upon that is a passive trigger | design, wrapping the ball with walls of dewars with spring- | loaded lids that open up when pressure drops below the level | that the liquid nitrogen is normally contained at. If one is | breached, they all breach at the same time enveloping the | entire sodium footprint. | | [1] http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/01/fire-in-sodium- | cool... | gloriana wrote: | I think it is probably a bad reactor and a questionable | company. | | 1. The company is totally opaque on even basic design details. | This is not ghost mode. It's likely hiding incompetence and | lack of design work / maturity. | | 2. It's a fast reactor so lots of high energy neutrons that | will cause faster material degradation, higher maintenance | cost, more downtime - the economics for fast reactors have | never worked (not even in Russia or China), and this is | probably why fusion reactors will never be economical (32x | greater neutronicity). | | 3. It has terrible fuel utilization: 1% burn-up of fuel, with | 100 metric tons uranium / GWe-year compared to 5-10% in other | normal and advanced reactors. | | 4. The founders lie to congress claiming their reactor "can | consume the used fuel from today's reactors" when each reactor | is actually going to require 3 tons of pretty pristine HALEU... | | 5. The founders peddle some serious BS (bitcoin mining, TED | talks ... etc) not unlike the other great MIT nuclear startup | Transatomic. | | 6. NRC really went out of their way to publicly reject this | with press release and all. This was not done lightly to a | company often featured in the WSJ and Popular Mechanics. | | 7. I'm disturbed by the way they talk about their reactor as a | "community meeting place" with their modern glass A-frame | without any power generating equipment. Is there going to be a | daycare center or country club in there? Where the hell are the | cooling towers? I'm all for nuclear power, but we shouldn't be | down playing the seriousness of nuclear power systems. | roenxi wrote: | Well we're all creatures of opinion; but there is a lot here | without much real backing. We have a similar post on tech | forums for almost every company from Apple to ... I can't | think of a company name starting with Z, Volkswagen will have | to do. And pretty much every startup if someone cares to look | in to them. | | Cynicism is extremely easy. Every company looks dodgy from | the outside and most of them are dodgy. Many such posts turn | out to be correct. But that is because cynicism is misplaced | - the point of these startups is that some of them will, | despite looking dodgy, turn out to be keystones for trillions | of dollars of industrial success. | | The upside of a serious energy revolution completely | outweighs any of these points raised. There needs to be a way | for dodgy-looking startups to experiment without just getting | a "nah, this year's work is a write off. Oh well lol" from | regulators. | [deleted] | hairytrog wrote: | Seems like you have an ax to grind. But will agree the | opaqueness is disturbing and unnecessary. just compare to | https://usnc.com/mmr/ or https://www.nuscalepower.com | gloriana wrote: | I mean, I am just criticizing the founders and company | based on the information available - which isn't much, but | it's their fault. They seem to have a lot of press coverage | for an empty landing page, and a lot of it is unreasonably | glowing. | ashtonkem wrote: | Also, it's _far_ from unusual for someone to find a given | company suspicious and go digging to find out more and | produce public reports or comments questioning their | validity. That's not "axe to grind" and more "amateur | investigative journalism". | [deleted] | spiderice wrote: | > Seems like you have an ax to grind | | I don't feel like this is at all a fair or appropriate | response to GP. They all seemed like very valid points. | Which points fall under the "grinding an axe" category, as | opposed to "valid criticism" category? | hairytrog wrote: | Point 2 is highly debatable. DOE is funding TerraPower's | Natrium (Bill Gates company) which is a fast reactor, to | the tune of 2.5B as part of the Advanced Reactor Demo | Program. So a lot of people in the industry believe fast | reactors can be commercially viable. | Sniffnoy wrote: | People being _wrong_ about things is not a reason to | accuse them of acting in bad faith. | PaulHoule wrote: | Look to FFTF for a completely successful fast reactor run in | the U.S. that was unfortunately shut down for political | reasons that, retrospectively, look like a terrible mistake. | | One of the most interesting features of the FFTF was a | sodium-to-air heat exchanger which is a key to fast reactors | having superior economics. | | That is, no nuclear reactor which uses a steam turbine is | going to be economically competitive with fossil fuel fired | gas turbine generators. Between the absolutely huge and | massive steam turbine and absolutely huge and massive heat | exchangers (look at how big the steam generators are in the | PWR or the huge tube-in-shell heat exchanger used at | Dounreay) | | A closed cycle gas turbine will fit in the employee break | room of the turbine house of a conventional LWR. It requires | some kind of reactor that runs at a higher temperature than | the LWR. I like fast reactors and molten salts but have a | hard time being enthusiastic about HTGR and friends. | | So much of the literature still looks like a stopped clock. | People still compare nuclear to coal although coal has been | economic for a long time for the same reason as the LWR... | The cost of that huge steam turbine. | | Problems with fast reactors I worry about are the fear of | proliferation (not proliferation) constricting what you can | use for fuel and (more so) the plutonium nanoparticle problem | w/ MOX fabrication. Of course you don't need to use MOX or | you'd think in 2022 you could use 100% remote handling and | not have the problems that Karen Silkwood was worried about | at the place where she worked. | jhallenworld wrote: | I went looking for operating closed cycle gas turbine power | plants- this seems like a research topic all on its own, no | matter the heat source. | | It's definitely true that simple cycle gas turbine plants | are much cheaper than equivalent size steam plants. This | right here sets the bar for any kind of thermal power | plant. | | See table ES3 for cost comparisons.. | | https://esmap.org/sites/default/files/esmap- | files/TR122-09_G... | xyzzyz wrote: | > One of the most interesting features of the FFTF was a | sodium-to-air heat exchanger which is a key to fast | reactors having superior economics. > That is, no nuclear | reactor which uses a steam turbine is going to be | economically competitive with fossil fuel fired gas turbine | generators. | | OK, but FFTF reactor has not generated electricity at all. | How is "sodium to air heat exchanger" supposed to generate | electricity, to make it more economical than steam | turbines? | | > That is, no nuclear reactor which uses a steam turbine is | going to be economically competitive with fossil fuel fired | gas turbine generators. | | That's highly likely to be true (at least until cheap gas | runs out, which will happen at some point, though it will | take many decades/centuries until then), but I thought we | are aiming to get off fossil fuels, no? We should be | willing to pay some premium for nuclear, because it does | not emit GHG. | PaulHoule wrote: | A next generation nuclear reactor is not going to couple | to air but probably to carbon dioxide and then to a | powerset like | | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S173857 | 331... | | Nuclear also competes with fossil fuel powerplants that | capture carbon. There are many options such as: (1) turn | the fuel to hydrogen and burn the hydrogen, (2) run the | exhaust gas through an amine stripper, (3) burn the fuel | in pure oxygen so the amine stripper has less work to do | (recycle the combustion products so the turbine doesn't | burn up), (4) chemical looping combustion that uses a | metal like iron as an oxygen carrier, etc. | | The cost of something like that doesn't look crazy, | optimizing it is a job for the systems engineering | department, you can compress the CO2 to 1500 psi and | inject it into saline aquifers which exist in most | places. (Drives me nuts that carbfix gets so much press | for a process which only works in a few places and | consumes much more water than the carbon it captures) | | It is not happening because regulators aren't forcing it, | there is no carbon tax or carbon credit for it. | | You could save the world with a nuclear option that is | truly cheaper than the alternatives without subsidy. | Anything that involves subsidy is going to give somebody | an opportunity to get rich by siphoning off 5% of the | credits and keep the gravy train running by paying 1% of | that to politicians. Anything like that will run into | intense opposition, look like a scam to people, probably | be a scam in many cases (extortion like "we'll cut down | this forest if you don't pay us" and then the forest gets | cut down or burned anyway, unverifiable schemes like | grinding up rocks and leaving them at the beach, ...) | damage the legitimacy of the government and delay real | solutions. | [deleted] | morning_gelato wrote: | > the economics for fast reactors have never worked (not even | in Russia or China) | | Russia currently has two sodium-cooled fast reactors that are | producing power, the BN-600 and BN-800. They also have | another sodium reactor under development, the BN-1200. BREST- | OD-300, a lead-cooled fast reactor, is under construction as | well. | mlindner wrote: | In Fusion reactors the neutrons are used to breed Tritium | from the Lithium so they're not hitting the structure and | degrading it. | hairytrog wrote: | Not quite. 80% of the energy in D-T fusion reactions are | released as neutron energy. I sure hope most of that will | be used for generating electrical power rather than | breeding tritium... :) The dpa rates and helium | embrittlement are way higher for fusion and fast fission | reactors than for thermal fission reactors. See Figure 3 | and 5 of | https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev- | matsci... | marcosdumay wrote: | You have to absorb the neutrons to capture that energy, | so you will always have to deal with transmutation. You | can't choose one or the other. | | On this case, the lithium absorbs the neutrons and | convert most of the energy into heat, while it becomes | tritium. | pfdietz wrote: | So, we have half a meter of lithium just sitting there, not | contained in any structure? | Sniffnoy wrote: | > 2. It's a fast reactor so lots of high energy neutrons that | will cause faster material degradation, higher maintenance | cost, more downtime - the economics for fast reactors have | never worked (not even in Russia or China), and this is | probably why fusion reactors will never be economical (32x | greater neutronicity). | | Commonwealth Fusion Systems's ARC has an interesting approach | to handling this -- using a liquid blanket which can be | circulated. Of course, ARC isn't built yet! But if that | approach is workable, perhaps it can be applied more | generally? | gloriana wrote: | I believe it has to be replaced every 4 years of operation | as intermediate level radioactive waste. | belorn wrote: | The question that should be asked is if the faults of the | application is severe enough that its worth continuing burning | fossil fuels until/if there is a new and better source of | energy. That is the counter part when determining a balance | between the need for strict regulation and risk assessments. | The damage we know we are causing with known technology, or the | damage we might cause with new technology. | | We have this kind of cost-benefit assessment in other | regulations. It is always a trade off between the benefit of | having them vs the cost of not allowing it, be it a new food | safety restrictions or building codes. A replacement for diesel | generators might be worth a slightly higher risk given how much | damage those fossil fuel generators do to the environment, and | the global commitment to prevent climate change. | colechristensen wrote: | That question does not need to be asked. Nuclear power is | dangerous and needs to be done with extreme care and | extensive regulation. A worst case nuclear disaster can have | local and not so local effects which are worse, sooner, and | longer lasting than any global warming threat. If you are | careful those things don't happen. | roughly wrote: | Alternatively, "we asked that question and the answer is | 'yes'." | nradov wrote: | If you're competent and do your job correctly then it's | possible to get NRC approval on the first try. Doing it right | doesn't have to be slower or more expensive. | tptacek wrote: | Can you say more about this? I'm glad the top comment here is | actually about the application itself and would love to read | more about this. | [deleted] | bpodgursky wrote: | The NRC has never approved a new nuclear reactor (which ended | up in production). The NRC says the same about _every_ | application. | | It also took two years for the NRC to provide this rejection. | | Please don't excuse incompetence on an issue this important to | the future. | anonporridge wrote: | So why is anyone wasting money trying to innovate on this | technology in the US? | | Surely there is some other nation state that is less risk | averse and open to nurturing innovation. | PaulHoule wrote: | Applicants and the NRC have to figure out what the | expectations are for a new reactor application to be | considered a good application. Oklo is leading the way in | that process, I hope they make it through. | epistasis wrote: | It sounds like Oklo didn't bother to try to figure out what | the regulators wanted, since they didn't bother to answer | the questions of regulators. | | I've done some first mover approval work in biology, and | yes it's more work, but all first movement is more work in | every way because you're pioneering something new. The FDA, | at least, is not unreasonable and is usually very open | about the bar they think they need to set. You just need to | talk to them, request a meeting, and show up. And also | realize that it's going to be an iterative process, as any | new product design process is also iterative. | hangonhn wrote: | I remember someone lecturing about the nuclear industry | mentioned that there is an inherent second mover advantage | in the industry because the first mover has to figure out | all the new stuff and get it approved by regulators. The | second mover just follows the template and has a much | easier time. If this is truly the case, then it seems like | it would be hard to innovate in this space. If so, how can | we remedy that? | ryanSrich wrote: | Limit the regulations. That's the only way. | winphone1974 wrote: | For nuclear power. Right. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | > For nuclear power. Right. | | This right here is the problem. | | It is actually possible to over-regulate something, no | matter what it is. The more people believe something | needs to be regulated, the more likely it is to be | regulated disproportionate to the need. Consider the | safety record of commercial nuclear power in the US. | | So some coal company gets a regulation inserted that says | that in order to open a new nuclear reactor, you must | first push a boulder up a hill for a thousand years. | | Later someone does a cost benefit analysis on that | regulation, it turns out to be costing a lot while | actually making safety worse, so they propose to repeal | it. | | Headline: Get your Pitchforks, People, They Want To | Deregulate Nuclear Power | ryanSrich wrote: | I was answering the question. What other ways can you | achieve innovation without limiting regulation? If the | NRC is unwilling to budge, and they hold the keys to the | castle, there's no solution. | _dain_ wrote: | Yes: | | https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop | | >Excessive concern about low levels of radiation led to a | regulatory standard known as ALARA: As Low As Reasonably | Achievable. What defines "reasonable"? It is an ever- | tightening standard. As long as the costs of nuclear | plant construction and operation are in the ballpark of | other modes of power, then they are reasonable. | | >This might seem like a sensible approach, until you | realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for | nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. Nuclear | can't even innovate its way out of this predicament: | under ALARA, any technology, any operational improvement, | anything that reduces costs, simply gives the regulator | more room and more excuse to push for more stringent | safety requirements, until the cost once again rises to | make nuclear just a bit more expensive than everything | else. Actually, it's worse than that: it essentially says | that if nuclear becomes cheap, then the regulators have | not done their job. | Zak wrote: | I'm often at least sympathetic to anti-regulatory | sentiment whether or not I'm fully onboard with it, but | not here. The risk to others in operating a nuclear | reactor is considerable, and anyone wishing to do so | should be required to prove they understand the risks and | have mitigated them to a degree acceptable to the public. | | Instead, regulators may have opportunities to improve the | process to make it easier for applicants to understand | what they must do to receive approval. In this case, I | have the impression the NRC _did_ adequately explain what | Oklo needs to improve in its application. | pkaye wrote: | Slow down the approval of the second mover to match the | pace of the first approval. | ashtonkem wrote: | Two years actually sounds incredibly reasonable for a new | nuclear reactor design. | [deleted] | api wrote: | Every time I hear "liquid sodium" I think "run away!" How in | the world would you make that safe even without the nuclear | stuff? | PaulHoule wrote: | (1) Argon cover gas | | (2) Fires happen all the time in industrial facilities. You | detect them and put them out. US and Russian literature tells | you how it is done. EBR-II, FFTF and BN-800 point the way. | Japan shows you how not to do it. (Not detect the fire for a | long time, lie to the media about how bad the damage was) | marcosdumay wrote: | > You detect them and put them out. | | Well, not molten sodium. You don't put it out. You isolate | the fire and let it run. | PaulHoule wrote: | See https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6669413-xoXD4J/ | HPsquared wrote: | Keep it inside the box I suppose, same principle as keeping | the nuclear stuff safe. | PaulHoule wrote: | Sometimes you open the box. There could be 'cartridge | reactors' that live in a stylish hutch and only get opened | at the factory, but if this is the first one they will | probably need to open it and poke around inside for some | reason. | | Even if it only gets opened at the factory then you have to | worry about the factory. | marcosdumay wrote: | That one is reasonably easy. You make sure that you only | open the box when it's not molten. It's much easier than | the nuclear part. | PaulHoule wrote: | If the sodium is cold you will have the hardest time | getting the fuel rods in and out to refuel. | hnburnsy wrote: | Oklo's response... | | https://okloinc.medium.com/whats-next-566bb49b74dc | | >We woke up a few days ago to incredibly surprising decisions by | the NRC. Although Oklo responded to every request for | information, and the last thing we heard from the NRC was that | the information we submitted was helpful, the NRC has denied our | first application on the basis of not having submitted | information. The NRC has now gone from having one combined | license under review to none. | foofoo55 wrote: | I find their public response unprofessional and immature. The | Nuclear regulatory process is similar to other federal and | international public-safety regulatory processes such as | aviation, medical, and wireless: companies soon learn that it | is best to work with the regulations and regulators and not | fight them. | lvs wrote: | In reading over this, I honestly became more worried about the | prospect of this company building nuclear reactors than before | I read it. This is not a professional response that breeds | confidence. It is... petulant. | barney54 wrote: | This is a huge issue for nuclear power generally. It is | incredibly expensive to navigate the regulations. Oklo thought | they were good and now they need to spend millions and millions | more to apply again. (I'm assuming good faith on Oklo's part). I | really think there needs to be serious reform at the NRC. | halpert wrote: | The article is really sparse on what information was missing. | Neither the NRC or Oklo specified what else is needed. It's | probably wise to give both sides the benefit of the doubt. | bgentry wrote: | While the article doesn't reference all these details, the | NRC's denial letter to Oklo covers more of them: | https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2200/ML22006A267.pdf | | The claim from the NRC in that letter is: | | _"Oklo's application continues to contain significant | information gaps in its description of Aurora's potential | accidents as well as its classification of safety systems and | components," Veil said. "These gaps prevent further review | activities. We are prepared to re-engage with Oklo if they | submit a revised application that provides the information we | need for a thorough and timely review."_ | | (phew, that PDF does not copy/paste text cleanly, at least | not in Safari. Had to re-type it.) | halpert wrote: | That sounds reasonable to me. | jjoonathan wrote: | What are the gaps? | | Asking for more information until the other party gives | up is a tactic -- as is refusing to provide damning | information. It's hard to say which game is being played, | or even if any game is being played at all, without | knowing details. | wesoff wrote: | From Rod Adams: Oklo's COL application is part of an | effort to achieve a difficult, but important goal. The | company has challenged the standard way of doing things | and designed a nuclear power system that is as different | from a conventional reactor as a gasoline powered scooter | is from a 100 MW slow speed diesel pushing a large | container ship. Oklo submitted a license application they | believe satisfies the letter and the intent of the | governing regulations in a form appropriate for its | proposed system. The NRC reviewers are not yet satisfied | with the information provided and left open the | opportunity to modify the application to fill in the gaps | it believes exist. The NRC chose to deny the application | instead of continuing the process of obtaining additional | information. That might have been stimulated by a | legislative timeline of 3 years from docketing to final | determination. I expect Oklo will be resubmitting its | application before the end of the summer. | | Longer explanation | | Oklo's application doesn't follow the Standard Review | Plan format. That 4,500 page document of regulatory | guidance fits the large light water reactor systems, | structures, components, and processes it was designed | for. But it is unwieldy and inappropriate for Oklo's | reactor design. Reviewers are used to the SRP and the | applications produced using its specified format; they | are not yet comfortable with the way that the Oklo | application provides required information. | | The NRC's denial of Oklo's novel COL application is a | disappointment, but it's not a complete surprise. Oklo is | doing something that is difficult by pushing change in a | federal regulatory agency whose processes and procedures | have been developed over decades to focus on a particular | kind of reactor. Oklo's 1.5 MWe reactor uses liquid metal | filled heat pipes to passively move heat energy out of a | few dozen assemblies containing metallic alloy fuel rods. | That is a completely different machine than a 1,000 MWe | reactor that pumps high pressure water through a core | made up of hundreds of assemblies consisting of a bundle | of hundreds of thin walled tubes filled with UO2 pellets. | Oklo and the NRC review team have worked diligently to | come to an agreement that the COL contained information | required for a complete safety review. Oklo has answered | every request for information it has received, but the | NRC has judged those responses to be not yet complete. | The NRC had the option of obtaining information it | thought was missing through another, more focused round | of RAIs and response. Under the pressure of a | Congressionally mandated deadline of 3 years for | reviewing a docketed application, it chose to deny the | application "without prejudice." This gives the NRC the | opportunity, outside of a formal license review process, | to communicate what they believe is missing from the | application. It gives Oklo the opportunity to produce a | better application that fills those information gaps. | Karunamon wrote: | Pertinent info FTA: | | _Oklo co-founder and COO Caroline Cochran pointed out the | stunning fact that no nuclear plant that has submitted an | application since the formation of the NRC in 1975 has yet | commenced operation._ | | Assuming accuracy, that's a damning statistic. I don't believe | for a minute that _every single application_ that 's crossed | their desk for nearly _half a century_ was so flawed or unsafe | that it was unworkable. | | Knowing what I know of governments and bureaucrats, I'd | speculate that they're being asked for a bunch of irrelevant or | impossible (i.e. doesn't apply to their design) information, | and the people in the bureau are being useless and obstructive | about it since there's no downsisde for false negatives. | thesausageking wrote: | None have commenced operation, but NRC has approved | applications for new nuclear plants. | | It's easy to blame regulators, but a big factor is simply | cost. For the last 20-30 years, low fossil fuel costs in the | US have meant that the huge investment needed to get a | nuclear plant from application to operations didn't make | sense. Westinghouse Electric went bankrupt in 2017 because of | it. Add in that nuclear has been very out of favor with the | public, it makes it really hard to get a reactor built. | Gwypaas wrote: | Not really, it is very specifically worded to paint the NRC | in bad light. Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer and company have | gotten the applications regarding their designs approved. | They just haven't managed to bring the construction to a | finish yet. | | The NRC may be the culprit there also, but that is a | completely different question. | samwillis wrote: | There was an interesting discussion of this on Twitter the | other day when Patrick Collison posted about it: | | https://mobile.twitter.com/patrickc/status/14807290103257661. | .. | burkaman wrote: | It's pretty carefully worded, even if that's true it's | possible that NRC has approved lots of applications that | haven't commenced operation for other reasons. It's bad | regardless, but unclear if NRC is rejecting everything or if | projects are failing because of other factors. | Karunamon wrote: | I'd imagine that the initial application is not the only | touch point. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | It's not that the applications are denied, it's that they | haven't started operation. Below that quote it mentions | another company that has gotten approval. | imglorp wrote: | Also part of bureaucracy is cronyism. There's a lot of big | contractors working for and with the NRC who might not like | any new competition. | sct202 wrote: | It's a little misleading since the expansions at Vogtle in | Georgia are scheduled to finish this year and next year. | barney54 wrote: | That's still 47 years assuming the Vogtle is actually | finished this year. | voz_ wrote: | You call it an issue, I call it a boon. | | I do not want nuclear power approved quickly, or easily. I want | it to be burdensome, difficult, and with a massive requirement | for proving out safety in even the most unlikely of scenarios. | | This area does not need Silicon Valley style disruption at the | cost of endangering lives and destroying the earth. | blhack wrote: | >This area does not need Silicon Valley style disruption at | the cost of endangering lives and destroying the earth. | | We are _currently_ destroying the earth because we are stuck | using technology from the 1800s to power our 21st century | society. Yes we do need silicon valley style disruption. | | Give them a pacific atoll, or an old oil drilling platform, | and let them do whatever they want. | worik wrote: | We have the tools we need, already, to avert the | catastrophe. | | Problem is it will cost the rich and powerful a little | opportunity cost and a bit of wealth. | | The looming climate catastrophe has political and social | solutions. Not technical ones. | losvedir wrote: | This is very much "status quo" bias, as if the current state | of the world were not endangering lives and destroying the | earth. | | People talk about climate change in apocalyptic terms until | it actually matters in real world decisions for things other | than the things they wanted to do anyway. | [deleted] | erdos4d wrote: | This is one area where the normal Silicon Valley strategy of | "fake it til you make it" just won't fly. I deeply hope NRC keeps | shooting this down until they actually do it right. Sounds like | this company doesn't really have the chops to play this game, but | maybe they are just sloppy, we'll see. | trixie_ wrote: | I want to support this company, but their website is empty and | finding any details on their reactor design is tough. Looking | through their application and correspondence with the NRC | https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/aurora-oklo/do... I | can't even find a diagram of their system. | [deleted] | notananthem wrote: | Literally says its a terrible application. Oklo more like | inkomplete | worik wrote: | There is nothing here that deals with the fundamental problems of | nuclear power | | * Long term waste. Must be contained for hundreds of thousands of | years | | * Decommissioning. Nothing lasts for ever. What do we do with an | old reactor vessel and the land it stood on? | | There are many much better ways of producing energy. But | unfortunately for the greed heads they are mostly decentralised | (wind and solar are ready now) which means big industrial cash | generators do not result from them. | | This is a boondoggle. I wish I could say it is the last gasp of | the desperate, but it is the core of the military industrial | complex heaving its weight around. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-14 23:00 UTC)