Hacker News Reader

Comment by preisschild | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately its just a small boiling water reactor. More capacity is needed in most parts of the world. Lager reactors are needed.

View on HN

> Unfortunately its just a small boiling water reactor.

It is not just a small boiling water reactor. It is a 300 MW-electric boiling water reactor, and if successful, it will be followed by 3 more of the same type for a total of 1.2 GW-electric. That is more than an AP-1000 reactor, and much less risky.

> Larger reactors are needed.

Genuine question: Why? Why not many smaller reactors? Small modular reactors seem pretty neat.

Is there an efficiency loss/total cost difference with smaller reactors?

Like most industrial sites, large reactors are much more economical than small ones. This is why nobody has built SMRs since the 1950s.

The basic premise of "have a factory that produces reactors small enough to ship" always made sense to my uneducated mind. Is there a flaw in the idea? It seems like it should be much cheaper than if every reactor were bespoke

With smaller reactors, one needs more of everything: reactor vessels, containment structures, cooling systems, generators, etc. This is why industrial facilities are usually built as large as reasonably possible, and why SMRs fell out of fashion as soon as GW-class reactors became feasible in the 1960s.

SMRs have their use. Depending on the model and design you can build them or even bring them [0] to a remote place where you want to build industry but the infrastructure and access to electrical grid is lacking. I'd argue nowadays they are even more important with the huge rise in electricity demand.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov

Is that actual cost or projected cost because right now large reactors look prohibitively expensive meanwhile as you say we haven't really tried building SMR's on a production line.

Meanwhile Sweden is putting its money where its mouth is:

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2026/15-06-...

It's less about money and more about timeline risks. Canada's BWRX will cost per MW by plan more than French flamanville with all delays. But unlike Flamanville it has chances to be put on the grid faster

Technically yes, but in the case of nuclear, regulatory cost is what matters more. If the paperwork needed for construction of one large scale reactor is much more expensive than that needed for construction of a hundred smaller identical reactors, then the SMRs will win.

because opex is cheaper. Modularity can be achieved in large units too

I mean, Ontario runs the Bruce nuclear plant which is the second largest in the world in terms of the power it generates at 6,610 MW, Japan gets the top nod with a plant that generates 7,965 MW.

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa ? It has been not in full commercial service for close to two decades now. Only one unit recently restarted this year. 6 units are offline now

There are two South Korean plants (Kori, Hangul) larger than Bruce

You could be right about the Korean plants. I only relied on google to give me the top 5 nuclear plants active in the world. The Korean plants you mention were not on the list.

Wikpedia has more info, plus WNN and other industry publications usually are more up-to date.

Kori[1] has 7 operational units today and 1 commissioning and 1 under construction

Hansul[2] has 8 operational units and another 2 more under construction.

All 4 new units are APR-1400 reactors ~1400 MW capacity. Kori should retains its top position, Saeul-3 in Kori Phase II has already reached criticality in April.

Tianwan in China will come close but its 7/8 units are slightly behind in construction than Saeul-3/4 in South Korea, plus the plant is also bit smaller at 6600MW now . The Russian VVER-1200 design China are using is also slightly smaller than Korean APR-1400.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kori_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanul_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Reply on news.ycombinator.com