Hacker News Reader

Comment by tuukkah | Hacker News Reader

Nuclear is not so easy: "In February 2005, the Finnish cabinet gave its permission to TVO to construct a new nuclear reactor, making Finland the first Western European country in 15 years to order one.[17] The construction of the unit began in 2005. The start of commercial operation was planned for 2010, but has been pushed back several times. As of December 2019, the estimate for start of regular production is March 2021." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

View on HN

The Finnish state is implementing a design project for a miniature nuclear reactor type usable for district heating in the municipalities [0][1]. The radiation safety center (STUK) just released safety guidance for these type of small reactor (SMR - small modular reactor) [2].

I think small reactors will be a thing soon.

[0] https://www.vttresearch.com/media/news/small-modular-reactor...

[1] https://www.vtt.fi/inf/julkaisut/muut/2017/OA-District-heat-...

[2] https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfinlands-stuk-prepares-...

Yes the EPR design is a disaster that may end the French civilian nuclear industry.

Renewable energies are very competitive nowadays, and once we have good energy storage solutions at scale, I don't see why anyone would buy a new nuclear reactor.

Then we ordered another reactor, a VVER, from the Russian Rosatom in 2013. It's already 4 years behind the schedule and won't open before 2028. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

I used to work in a company that was making equipment for nuclear reactor and worked closely with Areva.

There is a lot of issue in those contract that will make sure that any nuclear project will be several years late. The first thing is the unrealistic estimation in the first place.

I saw an engineer slash his estimation for a basic piece several time because management wasn't happy with it. His initial estimation was correct, but they want to show the client an impossible deadline to outbid any other competitors (which are doing the same ...).

I saw people with niche and highly critical skill go to retirement without any replacement because the company never let them teach someone their job.

I saw contractor being put at very important position in a project then having their contract not being renewed, blocking the entire project ...

This and the fact that nuclear has become something "problematic" politically meaning that contract can come and go in a whim, and investment has become unreliable, also impacting formation, which mean there is a shortage of people who can actually work in this field.

So it's more about the beuraucracy than the tech?

It's about the difficulty of implementation. Areva and Siemens are not able to finish the construction. Safety requirements obviously make it more difficult than, say, an airport (BER), and I bet the organisational culture of the constructors leaves something to be desired. "The build quality just isn't what it used to be." (Not a direct quote from Wikipedia.)

Some years ago, I listened a person who was both involved in governmental oversight of the building project and a card carrying member of Green Party. He was really happy that they had spotted a missing welder's certificate. (There was no complaint about the quality of the work, only about the missing paper work.) He was laughing out loud, in a joy of an accomplishment, for the fact that the project was delayed for year or so for this.

So yeah, I would go for the bureaucracy.

If you are building a nuclear reactor and have doubts about the qualification of a worker, it would be irresponsible to not investigate.

There have been numerous issues with the quality of the work (the Wikipedia article has a list.) "Many large components, such as pressurizer forgings and some reactor internal parts, had to be re-manufactured once or twice to achieve the specified quality."

The thing was that safety oversight was not about the safety but about finding loopholes and formalities to cause maximum cost overruns and maximum delays to the project.

Or to put it in another words: I guess that same guy (and his friends) are having a raging boner for such number of delays. They consider each and every delay an accomplishment. It's a fucked up attitude.

If in 2 years the building collapses, and they find out that one of the welders had no certificate, how would the public react? How would you react? (even if the collapse had nothing to do with the welding itself)

I've never heard anyone complain ever about the quality of certification of workers when something went badly wrong except as part of a larger pattern of serious abuses.

So I'll go with nobody caring. If one rogue welder can cause a project to fail then the safety systems are beyond deficient and the undercertified welder would be the least of their problems.

If this set a project back by 12 months then the inspectors were overzealous. There were probably other problems that set the project back and the bureaucrat didn't understand the situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com