Hooray for Nuc Power!!!

[BenBurch]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/science/earth/13nuke.html?src=twrhp

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s 2012 budget proposal will include a request for money to help develop small “modular” reactors that would be owned by a utility and would supply electricity to a government lab, people involved in the effort say.

<SNIP>

I knew going in that Obama was sympathetic to nuclear energy. Now we see that bearing fruit. Let's see if the GOP Congress will stall this for the benefit of their good friends, the coal barons.

 

[WildCat]

"The costs of construction would range from a few hundred million dollars to $2 billion, as opposed to the current price tag of up to $10 billion for a twin-unit nuclear complex, which has an output 20 times larger than that expected for a modular reactor."

Uh, what? Doesn't this mean it's more cost effective to just build twin-unit reactors unless the cost can be brought down to under $500 million? A $2 billion reactor that produces 1/20th the power of a $10 billion reactor doesn't seem like a very good deal to me.

 

[drkitten]

"The costs of construction would range from a few hundred million dollars to $2 billion, as opposed to the current price tag of up to $10 billion for a twin-unit nuclear complex, which has an output 20 times larger than that expected for a modular reactor."

Uh, what? Doesn't this mean it's more cost effective to just build twin-unit reactors unless the cost can be brought down to under $500 million? A $2 billion reactor that produces 1/20th the power of a $10 billion reactor doesn't seem like a very good deal to me.

Which is why the budget request is to help "develop" these small reactors. A new technology is always less efficient initially than the technology it will eventually supplant and replace.

If the costs of construction are already in the "few hundred million dollar" range, then they're nearly comparable already, and reduced operating costs could easily make that nut. But if not,.... that's why R&D is appropriate.

 

[Aoidoi]

Their numbers do seem a bit odd, but there are more costs than just the base construction costs to consider. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of energy is lost during transmission in the current power grid, being able to locate a smaller modular plant where it's needed could nearly eliminate that waste. They mention the costs of operation are a big question mark, that could go either way in the cost calculations. Also not sure if the numbers they site are current or theoretical costs for the modular plants.

The more relevant question is how cost competitive they'd be against similarly sized fossil fuel based generators, which doesn't seem to be addressed at all in the article. If it's just the up front costs of construction that are high and then power generation is cheap it makes sense for the govt to push them, but if they're going to be more expensive long term, they're less of a benefit. The niche for these doesn't seem so much to replace the big nuke reactors as replacing smaller conventional ones, or allow localized power generation in areas where it makes sense.

The non-cost related advantages are non-trivial as well. Being able to reasonably size power plants to demand and adjust as needed is huge. You're currently looking at a 10 year construction cycle for traditional plants, these could be rolled out (at least theoretically) ten times faster and appropriately sized to demand. They talk about the carbon reduction in the article, and in general they're just cleaner to operate. Though refueling/disposal issues aren't mentioned, and those are traditional issues for nuke plants. People don't seem fond of having radioactive waste shipped cross country, though there are ways to mitigate that.

So overall I like the concept as it has some big advantages, but there are a whole lotta "ifs, ands, and buts" involved.

 

[WildCat]

Which is why the budget request is to help "develop" these small reactors. A new technology is always less efficient initially than the technology it will eventually supplant and replace.

I saw nothing in the article which says costs will go down, or even that this is radically new technology. In fact, it's very similar technology to what is on nuclear-powered ships.

Theoretically, standardized modular designs could reduce costs associated with approval of new designs, but this remains to be seen.

 

[TraneWreck]

Even if the costs never go down, the shift from fossil fuels has obvious benefits that are worth paying for.

 

[drkitten]

I saw nothing in the article which says costs will go down,

You probably didn't see anything in the article that stated that the plants would attract every other object in the universe via gravitation. Some things are so obvious as to not need mentioning, like the fact that when people are trying to "develop" an object, one of the criteria is generally reducing costs.

 

[WildCat]

You probably didn't see anything in the article that stated that the plants would attract every other object in the universe via gravitation. Some things are so obvious as to not need mentioning, like the fact that when people are trying to "develop" an object, one of the criteria is generally reducing costs.

Except we're not reinventing the wheel here, just putting existing technology in a different box.

 

[WildCat]

Even if the costs never go down, the shift from fossil fuels has obvious benefits that are worth paying for.

Both types of nuke plants reduce use of fossil fuels, why not invest in the one with the most bang for the buck?

 

[BenBurch]

Both types of nuke plants reduce use of fossil fuels, why not invest in the one with the most bang for the buck?

There are economies of scale. However, I DO expect that a mass-produced standard nuclear plant will come in under a custom-designed large installation once the economies of standardization come into play.

This is especially true if such plants can be run by a much smaller operations staff than a modern large station.

 

[Beeyon]

Which is why the budget request is to help "develop" these small reactors. A new technology is always less efficient initially than the technology it will eventually supplant and replace.

Development isn't a construction cost.


This is great news even if they cost more. I hope the program expands quickly outside of serving national laboratories.

 

[Puppycow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/science/earth/13nuke.html?src=twrhp



I knew going in that Obama was sympathetic to nuclear energy. Now we see that bearing fruit. Let's see if the GOP Congress will stall this for the benefit of their good friends, the coal barons.

With the Tea Party out for blood, it's hard to imagine them going for any new spending proposed by Obama.

 

[BenBurch]

With the Tea Party out for blood, it's hard to imagine them going for any new spending proposed by Obama.

They would rather destroy America than let a Democrat save it.

 

[Travis]

They would rather destroy America than let a Democrat save it.

If it means lower taxes for them so they can build that new guest house with marble columns they would surely let the rest of America degenerate into an uninhabitable wasteland.

 

[lionking]

Sadly, despite the abundance of uranium in Australia, Luddites from both sides of politics will mean nuclear power plants won't be built here for decades. We have heaps of coal as well, and gutless politicians.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/science/earth/13nuke.html?src=twrhp


I knew going in that Obama was sympathetic to nuclear energy. Now we see that bearing fruit. Let's see if the GOP Congress will stall this for the benefit of their good friends, the coal barons.

I forwarded this to the Canadian Nuclear Society e-mail list this morning. This is indeed a positive development.

100 million a year for five years seems rather small given the need for these new technologies and the Obama administrations nearly 1.6 trillion dollar deficit.

Historically, the Democrats are very weak on energy issues and it will take more than a comparative drop in the bucket for a good cause for them to assume a position of strength on energy independence.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sadly, despite the abundance of uranium in Australia, Luddites from both sides of politics will mean nuclear power plants won't be built here for decades. We have heaps of coal as well, and gutless politicians.

Helen Caldikook is one of yours as well. Please do the rest of the world a favor and try to keeping from escaping your borders?

 

[Travis]

If we ever want to be serious about carbon reduction nuclear is the way to go. It provides the kind of power needed for base generation.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Let's see if the Democrats will stall this for the benefit of their good friends, the coal barons.

In my attempt to provide a more rational look at nuclear power and the situation in Japan elsewhere, I am accused of beinga republican. Only republicans like nuclear power

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Sadly, despite the abundance of uranium in Australia, Luddites from both sides of politics will mean nuclear power plants won't be built here for decades. We have heaps of coal as well, and gutless politicians.

More like "never" than decades - at least one study has said we could get to 100% carbon-free power using only renewables in a decade or so if we really wanted to, mostly solar. We're blessed with huge, empty, sunny deserts.

There's simply no good reason to develop a nuclear industry here, despite our uranium deposits.

Mind you the gutless politicians and the coal industry are serious problems for renewables too. Maybe we should gang up on the coal industry and then stab each other in the back? Even if the pro-nuke people win it's still probably an improvement.