3 ms·
Lack of energy density in the turbines is not really what drives nuclear costs up. For a power plant it's not really an issue. That being said, you're correct
by jabl 5y ago
Lack of energy density in the turbines is not really what drives nuclear costs up. For a power plant it's not really an issue.
That being said, you're correct though. Compared to steam, power conversion machinery based on supercritical CO2 is amazingly compact. Fairly proven technology is higher temperature steam (about 540C rather than 300C) which is widely used in fossil fuel power plants, and would allow slightly better efficiency and smaller size.
- PaulHoule 5y agoThe supercritical CO2 turbine is about as big as the employee break room in a conventional turbine house. Cost is proportional to how much steel and concrete you're using. It's not just the cost of the turbine it is also the heat exchangers, which for a PWR are much larger than the reactor itself.
- jabl 5y agoWell, somebody has to step up and do the R&D to productisize supercritical CO2 technology. Steam has been around for a couple of centuries and is extremely mature. One potential cost reduction in none-LWR's is that those LWR reactor vessels are awfully thick and heavy to withstand the pressures involved. Making them is pretty involved, and there's only a few forges around the world capable of making such large objects. Metal or salt-cooled reactors work at roughly atmospheric pressure, which can be easily made by just welding sheet metal together.