3 ms·
The commercial versions of these are bigger than that. Economies of scale are still very much at play in nuclear due to the unique regulatory and supply chain i
by acidburnNSA 8y ago
The commercial versions of these are bigger than that. Economies of scale are still very much at play in nuclear due to the unique regulatory and supply chain issues, as well as how much not-highly-enriched fuel you need to go critical. But some folks working on nuclear farms (fields of small nukes with one security force) are dreaming of interesting new options.
Regarding economics, there are lots of reactors in the USA that have their capital cost completely paid off but they're still expensive because of high Operation and Maintenance costs. A lot of this is expensive retrofits and added security costs post 9/11. More of it is that cheap natural gas in deregulated markets has brought electricity prices way down and therefore electricity sales revenue way down. This is why some nuclear plants in the US are shutting down early before their lifetime is up. It's a great tragedy because these plants are massive carbon-free baseload electricity sources. Nukes in the US make 60%+ of the carbon-free energy of the country.
- gh02t 8y agoSize wise I think even the commercial units they are planning have the core and associated support machinery at about that size, not including things like turbines etc that would be needed for a proper plant. It's been a while since I've seen any technical presentations about TerraPower though so maybe that's out of date. The cost of retrofits is a good point, especially given that our nuclear fleet is getting pretty old. I am also worried about the glut of cheap natural gas and its tendency to stifle other technologies. It's almost unbeatable right now price wise, but I'm a bit concerned about what will happen when that changes. Renewables are great, but base-load power is still a problem.