5 ms·
> The first reactor needs an expensive plant, but dropping in a second or third at the same location, into the same tank, would cost much less. I don't think t
by privong 10y ago
> The first reactor needs an expensive plant, but dropping in a second or third at the same location, into the same tank, would cost much less.
I don't think that explains it, based on the article. Each individual module produces 50 MW, so a 570 MW plant would already involve 11+ individual modules/reactors. So presumably the modularization effect is already taken into consideration for the cost estimate of the 570 MW plant.
- jcoffland 10y agoI would expect a 22 module reactor to be cheaper per MW. How much cheaper is the question to ask. With out that information it's impossible to compare prices accurately.
- sandworm101 10y agoMuch likely depends on the customer. In the long term, i think they are targeting the military/facility market where a small reactor could provide heat without the expensive turbines needed to generate power. One of these could easily keep an airbase warm through an alaskan winter.
- Animats 10y agoThe USS Enterprise (the carrier, CVN-65, not the fictional one) had modular nuclear plants. It had eight submarine-sized reactors. Later US nuclear carriers had only two, larger, power plants. Although the military likes modularity and redundancy, the headaches of staffing and operating eight plants were not worth it.
- xjwm 10y agoVery true. Important to note that the 8 plants also allowed for testing different combinations of pumps, steam generators, and other plant equiptment. Rickover got a testbed for future plants integrated into an operating carrier.
- sandworm101 10y agoAnd carriers need a throttled power supply based on operations (steam to move, steam for catapults etc). Reactors don't like being throttled. So having eight probably meant they could keep more of them running at full, turning them off when not needed rather than try to run them at reduced power.