News and Discussions > Nuke News
Naval Reactors Should Be Empowered to Show the Way Again
Marlin:
--- Quote from: Broadzilla on Dec 07, 2013, 01:06 ---Nothing smaller than 1000 MW will ever be economical. That isn't political. that is financial fact. Having individual reactors at Paducah et al would increase their operating costs. They already had one of the lowest rates in the nation. Setting up their own infrastructure increases cost.
A Liquid Metal Reactor is STILL in the same boat if it can't put out 1000 MW.
--- End quote ---
That would be CW and that is part of problem and one of the points of the article. I might add that the magic 1000 level could be reached with 4 or 5 modular reactors that would put a facility in the range and capability of smaller companies as much of the cost of a plant comes from original capital cost that must be recouped. A quickly built, easier to license, lower maintenance cost, and longer life span of a SMR would put that magic 1000 MW site in the reach of more utilities. The first could be up and running providing revenue quickly while the next is being trucked in as factory built components and so on until the appropriate size is reached.
Economic Comparison of Different Size Nuclear Reactors
Fast forward to end (I recommend reading the whole thing)
5. CONCLUSIONS
Smaller and larger reactors address different markets and there are many market related factors
favoring one versus the other, independently from their capital cost.
When, however, they are competing on the same market the capital cost is not a discriminator
and the two types of nuclear plants can be practically equivalent under this respect. The so-called
economy of scale is not applicable “as is” and it is just one of many factors.
This paper presents only the beginning of the evaluation of the competitiveness of SMRs and
expanded, more detailed investigations will follow.
http://www.uxc.com/smr/Library/Economics/2007%20-%20Economic%20Comparison%20of%20Different%20Size%20Nuclear%20Reactors.pdf
GLW:
--- Quote from: Marlin on Dec 07, 2013, 11:00 ---.....The so-called economy of scale is not applicable “as is” and it is just one of many factors.
This paper presents only the beginning of the evaluation of the competitiveness of SMRs and
expanded, more detailed investigations will follow....
--- End quote ---
I'm not so sure your example or the author's premise focus on some deeply fundamental aspects,...
Your example seems to envision a 1000Mw site versus a 1000Mw unit,....
IIRC, units are licensed, not sites,...
There are economies of scale when licensing a single> 1000Mw unit at one site versus four to five smaller units at one site,...
Your example would have to change the regulatory framework and would have to convince the general public that the regulatory oversight and stakeholder SME's could safely ride herd on four to five reactors with the same level of resources currently required to run herd on one reactor,...
That seems to be unlikely to me but,......good luck with that!!!!!
Marlin:
--- Quote from: GLW on Dec 07, 2013, 11:15 ---IIRC, units are licensed, not sites,...
There are economies of scale when licensing a single> 1000Mw unit at one site versus four to five smaller units at one site,...
--- End quote ---
The new design is suppose to make the license for each much easier and quicker.
--- Quote from: GLW on Dec 07, 2013, 11:15 ---There are economies of scale when licensing a single> 1000Mw unit at one site versus four to five smaller units at one site,...
--- End quote ---
The paper on economies of scale did not address the multiple sites that was incite I got from other articles I read in the past.
--- Quote from: GLW on Dec 07, 2013, 11:15 ---Your example would have to change the regulatory framework and would have to convince the general public that the regulatory oversight and stakeholder SME's could safely ride herd on four to five reactors with the same level of resources currently required to run herd on one reactor,...
That seems to be unlikely to me but,......good luck with that!!!!!
--- End quote ---
New designs would allow for new regulatory framework as much of the work would be done in a "factory" not on the site that is also part of thinking outside the box.
Marlin:
So far most responses seem to be from conventional wisdom gained in the current nuclear industry and I believe that is the authors point. The next big evolution in nuclear (or power generation in general but now I am off topic) may even come from a teenagers garage causing a new direction that will cause the death of the current domination of the T-Rex in this nuclear Jurassic period.
"But that is just my opinion, I could be wrong." D.M.
;)
[coffee]
GLW:
I understand what you have presented for previous posts, yet, you keep iterating the same points for differing perspectives, it's like a one mantra wallops all exercise,...
--- Quote from: Marlin on Dec 07, 2013, 11:35 ---The new design is suppose to make the license for each much easier and quicker....
--- End quote ---
Licenses are not a one time deal, there are always licensing departments for the life of the license, these departments can be small or large, but the rigor of the technical oversight and maintenance of a license requires resources, resources for every single license over the lifetime of the license, supporting four or five smaller unit licenses on a single site just seems to me to naturally need more people than a single license for a single large unit site, perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps licensing for these new reactors will not have the fiducial obligation for rigorous technical safety and compliance reviews that the current reactors have and everybody will be good with that,...
I just find that to be a hard sell with Joe Q public,...
--- Quote from: Marlin on Dec 07, 2013, 11:35 ---
The paper on economies of scale did not address the multiple sites that was incite I got from other articles I read in the past.
--- End quote ---
You are bringing that aspect in as a supporting part of the overall perception you are boosting, regardless of it's source it is being used to buttress the validity of your perspective as a mutually supportive position in evidence,...
You are using it as part of the deck you are dealing, so it's weakness in regards to the specific detail regarding economy of scale with large single unit sites versus smalller multi-unit sites is a valid weakness,...
Economy of scale is true, it's not necessary to be financially viable, but it is true, and it does increase margins, and the current trend of the MBA's is much more about huge margin in your short term pocket than it is about smaller but steady margins over a lifetime of work or a career,...
I'm just saying,...
--- Quote from: Marlin on Dec 07, 2013, 11:35 ---....New designs would allow for new regulatory framework as much of the work would be done in a "factory" not on the site that is also part of thinking outside the box.
--- End quote ---
Lots of folks are thinking outside the box, it's getting Joe Q public and his elected representatives to think outside the box,,...
This all happened once before and it was called "Atoms for Peace",...
There is a laundry list of interesting little design exercises which were put on the grid to ascertain the best commercial reactor business models;
Dresden 1, Elk River, Fermi 1, Fort St. Vrain, Hallam, Humboldt, Indian Point 1, Parr, Pathfinder, Piqua, Saxton, Shippingport, SRE and VNC were all operated and shuttered with varying degrees of viability and success.
And then, concurrent with a nascent movement which began mushrooming around March of 1979, the public began to cool it's enthusiasm for the notion of "a reactor in everybodies garage" and I'm not convinced that they are convinced that paradigm should be revisited,...
As I typed earlier,.... good luck with that,.... [coffee]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version