First nuclear reactor coming online in the U.S. in 7 years

#51
#51
Count me in as a non-believer in SMRs. What little they will gain in their modularity and financing, they will lose in profits from economies of scales. It doesn't seem like utilities in the US are jumping out of their seats to build them because they are expensive per MWe. There was some interest when natural gas prices spiked, but that went away when they went back down.

Want to see a functioning new nuclear industry look to China, maybe Russia, maybe South Korea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Smokey X
#55
#55
Weezy said:
Count me in as a non-believer in SMRs. What little they will gain in their modularity and financing, they will lose in profits from economies of scales. It doesn't seem like utilities in the US are jumping out of their seats to build them because they are expensive per MWe. There was some interest when natural gas prices spiked, but that went away when they went back down.

Want to see a functioning new nuclear industry look to China, maybe Russia, maybe South Korea.
Click to expand...

That was my original opinion, too. A second look makes it seem like they are putting a bunch of modular reactors in a single plant. Somebody seems to think it makes sense, so I'm more wait and see now. If they were just putting one dinky 77MW plant on a site, it would make no sense at all considering the licensing and permitting issues. The only place I could see it working at all that way would be for the military in some remote areas where the need for power would still be long term ... and the reactor and power generation side were truly modular. Building 12 mini reactors to replace one reactor, steam generators, and reactor coolant pumps doesn't really look cost effective. Guess somebody is about to find out. In any case we need a bunch of nuclear plants starting now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and Smokey X
#56
#56
AM64 said:
That was my original opinion, too. A second look makes it seem like they are putting a bunch of modular reactors in a single plant. Somebody seems to think it makes sense, so I'm more wait and see now. If they were just putting one dinky 77MW plant on a site, it would make no sense at all considering the licensing and permitting issues. The only place I could see it working at all that way would be for the military in some remote areas where the need for power would still be long term ... and the reactor and power generation side were truly modular. Building 12 mini reactors to replace one reactor, steam generators, and reactor coolant pumps doesn't really look cost effective. Guess somebody is about to find out. In any case we need a bunch of nuclear plants starting now.
Click to expand...
The two projects I'm aware of are those already mentioned. The NuScale Idaho project which sounds like a new player utility with DOE subsidies. I'm skeptical. And the TVA small BWR design (BWR-300) which may happen but TVA isn't like other utilities. If you see the more competitive market utility players get into it, maybe it is cost competitive.

It doesn't seem like an enthusiastic market. It's kind of like everybody screaming wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity. If that was the case they'd be everywhere and you could get rid of the subsidies. But don't suggest that to the shouters...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey X and AM64
#57
#57
Weezy said:
The two projects I'm aware of are those already mentioned. The NuScale Idaho project which sounds like a new player utility with DOE subsidies. I'm skeptical. And the TVA small BWR design (BWR-300) which may happen but TVA isn't like other utilities. If you see the more competitive market utility players get into it, maybe it is cost competitive.

It doesn't seem like an enthusiastic market. It's kind of like everybody screaming wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity. If that was the case they'd be everywhere and you could get rid of the subsidies. But don't suggest that to the shouters...
Click to expand...

I hate the thought of anybody ever building another BWR. To me those are just nasty plants needlessly spreading contamination to the non-nuclear side of the plant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey X and Weezy
#58
#58
AM64 said:
I hate the thought of anybody ever building another BWR. To me those are just nasty plants needlessly spreading contamination to the non-nuclear side of the plant.
Click to expand...
Out of those out there it sounds like the best bet to actually get built, being in a long line of GE BWRs. But it also doesn't sound all that modular. So while it may get built, and that is good news, something to praise. I don't think it will unlock all the promise of a modular, assembly like construction. So it may just be a safer version of the smaller BWRs that have been shut down by economics (and those were built and paid for ones that were shut down). I guess the difference is multi unit as you mentioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#59
#59
Weezy said:
The two projects I'm aware of are those already mentioned. The NuScale Idaho project which sounds like a new player utility with DOE subsidies. I'm skeptical. And the TVA small BWR design (BWR-300) which may happen but TVA isn't like other utilities. If you see the more competitive market utility players get into it, maybe it is cost competitive.

It doesn't seem like an enthusiastic market. It's kind of like everybody screaming wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity. If that was the case they'd be everywhere and you could get rid of the subsidies. But don't suggest that to the shouters...
Click to expand...

it seems like it is mostly a market of lip service.....which I truly regret.....had really high hopes for a "nuclear renaissance", but am begrudgingly beginning to accept that it ain't gonna happen. I am now in the I'll believe it when I see it mindset.

attached is a pretty good article.....published by the oil/gas industry

The Pros And Cons of Modular Nuclear Reactors | OilPrice.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#60
#60
AM64 said:
I hate the thought of anybody ever building another BWR. To me those are just nasty plants needlessly spreading contamination to the non-nuclear side of the plant.
Click to expand...

while I agree with you on the BWR c-zone issues, one thing I learned while working in the transmission grid operation side of the house is that BWR's are much better at responding to relatively fast changing load conditions than their PWR counterparts. That is a flexibility than can't be underestimated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#61
#61
Smokey X said:
it seems like it is mostly a market of lip service.....which I truly regret.....had really high hopes for a "nuclear renaissance", but am begrudgingly beginning to accept that it ain't gonna happen. I am now in the I'll believe it when I see it mindset.

attached is a pretty good article.....published by the oil/gas industry

The Pros And Cons of Modular Nuclear Reactors | OilPrice.com
Click to expand...

Good article - especially the part about too many manufacturers and orphan plants. The only really great thing that I see proposed in small modular reactors is the potential to handle decay heat without off-site or backup power generation. When you combine the reactor and steam generators, it might make a nice neat package on paper and lead to some efficiencies, but it looks like a maintenance nightmare in the making.

The other thing they discussed is lack of standardization. Even when the nuclear steam supply system is common; it seems like every utility built the plant differently. In virtually every B&W plant the highest level floor below the polar crane was at the top of the reactor pool; the D wells around the steam generators towered above that floor level. When the reactor head and control rod drive assemblies were pulled they went no higher than the floor at the top of the pool. Go to Bellefonte and the floor is level with the top of the D wells which means the crane would have had to pull the head and control rod drive mechanisms what I think would be on the order of another 40 to 60 feet. Stuff like this just makes no sense, and every utility using a different design for no reason other than they used a different engineering firm to design the plant was nuts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey X
#62
#62
AM64 said:
Good article - especially the part about too many manufacturers and orphan plants. The only really great thing that I see proposed in small modular reactors is the potential to handle decay heat without off-site or backup power generation. When you combine the reactor and steam generators, it might make a nice neat package on paper and lead to some efficiencies, but it looks like a maintenance nightmare in the making.

The other thing they discussed is lack of standardization. Even when the nuclear steam supply system is common; it seems like every utility built the plant differently. In virtually every B&W plant the highest level floor below the polar crane was at the top of the reactor pool; the D wells around the steam generators towered above that floor level. When the reactor head and control rod drive assemblies were pulled they went no higher than the floor at the top of the pool. Go to Bellefonte and the floor is level with the top of the D wells which means the crane would have had to pull the head and control rod drive mechanisms what I think would be on the order of another 40 to 60 feet. Stuff like this just makes no sense, and every utility using a different design for no reason other than they used a different engineering firm to design the plant was nuts.
Click to expand...

standardization is one of my pet peeves. When you think about using multiple design vendors and NSSS suppliers versus a single standard design.....spare parts - would you rather keep required inventory for one design or 4. Human interchangeability - people can work from site to site and everything will be basically the same. Processes and procedures - same across the utility. Outage planning and schedules - interchangible......

It is full of advantages and cost savings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#63
#63
Smokey X said:
while I agree with you on the BWR c-zone issues, one thing I learned while working in the transmission grid operation side of the house is that BWR's are much better at responding to relatively fast changing load conditions than their PWR counterparts. That is a flexibility than can't be underestimated.
Click to expand...

What I learned (mostly in school) was that BWRs are good at shedding loads but not as good at ramping up. If you open the control valve to increase steam flow to the turbine, it reduces pressure in the reactor which because of the negative coefficient of reactivity causes the reactor to lose power. Reduced pressure increases steam volume and steam being less dense than water decreases the moderator "density" which in turn decreases thermal neutron flux density and reactor power. PWRs don't have the same direct coupling mechanism, but you are right they don't respond rapidly to load change. B&W once through steam generators have a superheat region in the steam generator that you can't do with a U-tube steam generator, so they are more able to add load, but that comes with risk. A Westinghouse or Combustion plant with higher water volume in the steam generators might have handled the TMI operator errors better than the B&W system. I guess you could say it's similar to getting into trouble quicker with a sporty car that reacts more promptly to driver inputs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey X
#64
#64
AM64 said:
What I learned (mostly in school) was that BWRs are good at shedding loads but not as good at ramping up. If you open the control valve to increase steam flow to the turbine, it reduces pressure in the reactor which because of the negative coefficient of reactivity causes the reactor to lose power. Reduced pressure increases steam volume and steam being less dense than water decreases the moderator "density" which in turn decreases thermal neutron flux density and reactor power. PWRs don't have the same direct coupling mechanism, but you are right they don't respond rapidly to load change. B&W once through steam generators have a superheat region in the steam generator that you can't do with a U-tube steam generator, so they are more able to add load, but that comes with risk. A Westinghouse or Combustion plant with higher water volume in the steam generators might have handled the TMI operator errors better than the B&W system. I guess you could say it's similar to getting into trouble quicker with a sporty car that reacts more promptly to driver inputs.
Click to expand...

12f1b4ea-02b1-41f9-98a8-f4a86a1305a3_text.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey X and AM64
#65
#65
AM64 said:
What I learned (mostly in school) was that BWRs are good at shedding loads but not as good at ramping up. If you open the control valve to increase steam flow to the turbine, it reduces pressure in the reactor which because of the negative coefficient of reactivity causes the reactor to lose power. Reduced pressure increases steam volume and steam being less dense than water decreases the moderator "density" which in turn decreases thermal neutron flux density and reactor power. PWRs don't have the same direct coupling mechanism, but you are right they don't respond rapidly to load change. B&W once through steam generators have a superheat region in the steam generator that you can't do with a U-tube steam generator, so they are more able to add load, but that comes with risk. A Westinghouse or Combustion plant with higher water volume in the steam generators might have handled the TMI operator errors better than the B&W system. I guess you could say it's similar to getting into trouble quicker with a sporty car that reacts more promptly to driver inputs.
Click to expand...

a guy I met that was on loan to INPO from TMI joked that their S/G's held a hardhat volume of water and were considered high humidity S/G's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#66
#66
f83e13fc005394433a6a76a793f11042.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol and 85SugarVol
#67
#67
Weezy said:
Count me in as a non-believer in SMRs. What little they will gain in their modularity and financing, they will lose in profits from economies of scales. It doesn't seem like utilities in the US are jumping out of their seats to build them because they are expensive per MWe. There was some interest when natural gas prices spiked, but that went away when they went back down.

Want to see a functioning new nuclear industry look to China, maybe Russia, maybe South Korea.
Click to expand...
Howza about the US Navy?
 
#68
#68
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, AM64, volfanhill and 1 other person
#69
#69
85SugarVol said:
Are the Biden Democrats going to get something right? Well done, if so.

thehill.com

Biden administration announces $1.5 billion loan for first reopening of a shuttered nuclear plant

The Biden administration on Wednesday announced a $1.5 billion loan to restart a Michigan nuclear power plant. The loan, made through the Energy Department’s Loan Program’s Office with Inflat…
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...

1. Doing it in a swing state in an election year.

2. Will be canceled as soon as:

A. The environmental crowd throws a fit

B. After the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, davethevol, StarRaider and 1 other person
#73
#73
I know it was the 70s but a Dem shut down Phipps Bend, Yellow creek, Hartsville. Seven units.
Oh don’t forget about B. Boxer and D. Finestien killing Songs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top