3 ms·

Weinberg also promoted passively safe PWRs like the PIUS late in his life. He thought MSRs would be economical only when fuel costs were high enough to justify

Weinberg also promoted passively safe PWRs like the PIUS late in his life. He thought MSRs would be economical only when fuel costs were high enough to justify the extra complexity of dealing with a radioactive fuel salt and maintenance of radioactive primary equipment. The MSR designs in work today are at a very early stage of development. We cannot and will not know their economics until we have a fleet operating and see what regulations show up as a result of operating history. Just like LWRs experienced in the 1970s. 1965s Oyster Creek was extremely cheap. 1980s reactors, not so much.

nickik 7y ago
I have not read Weinberg opinions late in live, could you please link me the sources? Molten Salt Fuel has a number of advantages over solid fuel pellets. I specially like the solution of the SSR where they copy the same assembly type setup and the whole process works very similarly to a PWR or Sodium reactor, but at the same time they retain the inherent advantage of liquid fuel. > The MSR designs in work today are at a very early stage of development. They are in advanced talks with the Canadian regulator and are planning deployment this decade. > We cannot and will not know their economics until we have a fleet operating and see what regulations show up as a result of operating history. Just like LWRs experienced in the 1970s. 1965s Oyster Creek was extremely cheap. 1980s reactors, not so much. We know now that building the nuclear station and financing of that build is the absolute cost killer for new nuclear, so having designs that are smaller by at least an order of magnitude for the same power output is gone be the huge advantage. I don't really see how the situation now compares to 1965 where over the next 15 years the regulatory environment changed 100%. The companies going threw regulatory approval are building to a known set of regulation for the design and the operation of their plants. The are building passively save systems with advanced operations that are designed for much fewer human operation (as any new design reactor design would). If they get licensed, it is hart to see what possible change in operation could impact the cost to such a huge degree.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Oyster Creek was extremely cheap because the price was set not by what it would cost to build, but to beat coal. It was a fixed price loss leader. The nuclear industry abandoned such turnkey contracts, and for good reason. They made a desperate return recently, with even sadder result: the bankruptcy of Westinghouse.
- achalhp 7y ago
  Good points. Primary loop of a MSR is equivalent to a cladding of a solid fuel assembly. You get a REACTOR at the same cost/MWe of solid fuel assembly. Ni alloys are cheaper than Zr alloy. So, early MSR designers will not opt for maintenance of the primary loop. Here's link to Weinberg's PIUS-LWR https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.10.110185.002243 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.10....

nickik 7y ago

I have not read Weinberg opinions late in live, could you please link me the sources? Molten Salt Fuel has a number of advantages over solid fuel pellets. I specially like the solution of the SSR where they copy the same assembly type setup and the whole process works very similarly to a PWR or Sodium reactor, but at the same time they retain the inherent advantage of liquid fuel. > The MSR designs in work today are at a very early stage of development. They are in advanced talks with the Canadian regulator and are planning deployment this decade. > We cannot and will not know their economics until we have a fleet operating and see what regulations show up as a result of operating history. Just like LWRs experienced in the 1970s. 1965s Oyster Creek was extremely cheap. 1980s reactors, not so much. We know now that building the nuclear station and financing of that build is the absolute cost killer for new nuclear, so having designs that are smaller by at least an order of magnitude for the same power output is gone be the huge advantage. I don't really see how the situation now compares to 1965 where over the next 15 years the regulatory environment changed 100%. The companies going threw regulatory approval are building to a known set of regulation for the design and the operation of their plants. The are building passively save systems with advanced operations that are designed for much fewer human operation (as any new design reactor design would). If they get licensed, it is hart to see what possible change in operation could impact the cost to such a huge degree.

pfdietz 7y ago
Oyster Creek was extremely cheap because the price was set not by what it would cost to build, but to beat coal. It was a fixed price loss leader. The nuclear industry abandoned such turnkey contracts, and for good reason. They made a desperate return recently, with even sadder result: the bankruptcy of Westinghouse.
achalhp 7y ago
Good points. Primary loop of a MSR is equivalent to a cladding of a solid fuel assembly. You get a REACTOR at the same cost/MWe of solid fuel assembly. Ni alloys are cheaper than Zr alloy. So, early MSR designers will not opt for maintenance of the primary loop. Here's link to Weinberg's PIUS-LWR https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.10.110185.002243 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.10....