4 ms·

These are 440MW reactors. They are not ‘small’, and they’ll still take about the same time to build, because the modular efficiencies here only apply to a small

These are 440MW reactors. They are not ‘small’, and they’ll still take about the same time to build, because the modular efficiencies here only apply to a small part of the construction timeline. They’re also $2.7B (might be £). These are not anything like a “different place in economics and politics”.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
That is really pretty small. Modern big plants are 30-40GW, 100 times larger. That makes these 'toy' nuclear plants. And they cost a linear increment of what one grand plant would cost. Around 10%. Making them definitely a 'different place in economics and politics'. This is all clear from the article. Just being contrary isn't adding to the conversation. How about discussing the potential to build scalable plants, with room to grow as demand grows? Things like that, which should guide the future of nuclear.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  You have overstated the size of modern NPPs by more than an order of magnitude.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Right, sorry. But still this expandable plant plan is still 10% of the size.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      No. There are no 3-4 GW(e) nuclear plants. The largest nuclear power reactor in the world has a net electrical output of 1.66 GW(e).
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        (Clarification: I meant no 3-4GW(e) reactors, not clusters of reactors of that total aggregate output.)
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Hinkley Point C consists of two 1600MW reactors. So the claim is off by slightly less than an order of magnitude, not by more than one.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      His statement was off by a factor of ~20 (on the power of the reactor; the proper comparison is reactor vs. reactor, not reactor vs. multiple reactors), or more than an order of magnitude,