fedecaccia

You could find extreme difficult level in nuclear industry: from my country argentina (I tried to build a service company providing nuclear solutions to an important client in Europe; killed by my government bureaucracy) to the US (se Nuscale hugh expenses on certifications from 2016 to 2020).

Main idea: license once, then repeat and repeat. Scale. The cost to produce energy from one single SMR is higher than fomr a classical PWR (diving output per full buidling cost) but that cost is reduced once you start scaling (all the costs associated with initial license are amortized).

The cost of electricity is (almost) negligible compared to the cost of having GPUs sitting idle. Electricity from fuel cells can be twice as expensive, but even then, it represents only about an extra ~15% of the amortization cost associated with keeping the GPU hardware idle.

There are two different clocks here. Financials could change in months, but the electrical infrastructure needs to be planned with years.

Gas turbines are all practically sold out till 2030, delivery time changed from 2-3 years to 5-7yrs.

Many announced data centers where destined to delay, independently from financial markets, due to the available infrastructure.

If the AI/data centers fomo dissapear, the effect on electrical production will take years in take effect, because capacity is already reserved and paid.

In oposition to software, energy infrastructure is not flexible: you can't speed up a turbine projected for 2032 neither cancel the order without a considerable cost.

Nuclear power plant facts are measured in different ways:

- net vs brute MW, electrical vs thermal MW - "operating" status means different things in different sources (connected, commercially available, operable but suspended, etc) - official sources publish state changes on different cycles, (for example PRIS vs GEM, etc), so for weeks at a time the same unit has two different states - some sources publish data per unit and day, other per power plant and per year, etc. - different names for the same power plant in different sources (for example, KANUPP & Karachi, Chashma & CHASNUPP, Zaporizhzhia & Zaporozhye, etc).

I went in expecting to find errors. Almost none of it was error: each institution answers a different question on its own calendar, and each is right by its own definition. But I found an important gap for those who need the updated and standardized information.

This is why I created reactoratlas.com

If you have built something similar over institutional data, how do you handle that?