The Rise of Small Nuclear Plants

ColdWetDog writes "The Oil Drum (one of the best sites to discuss the technical details of the Macondo Blowout) is typically focused on ramifications of petroleum use, and in particular the Peak Oil theory. They run short guest articles from time to time on various aspects of energy use and policies. Today they have an interesting article on small nuclear reactors with a refreshing amount of technical detail concerning their construction, use, and fueling. The author's major thesis: 'Pick up almost any book about nuclear energy and you will find that the prevailing wisdom is that nuclear plants must be very large in order to be competitive. This assumption is widely accepted, but, if its roots are understood, it can be effectively challenged. Recently, however, a growing body of plant designers, utility companies, government agencies, and financial players are recognizing that smaller plants can take advantage of greater opportunities to apply lessons learned, take advantage of the engineering and tooling savings possible with higher numbers of units, and better meet customer needs in terms of capacity additions and financing. The resulting systems are a welcome addition to the nuclear power plant menu, which has previously been limited to one size — extra large.'"

Comments

Re:This is good.

[Firethorn]

I'd recommend looking at this post.

First, the nuclear power industry pretty much has the best safety record going. Per dollar of product produced, it kills the least amount of people. Let's see, in the past decade it's killed, what, 3 people (the 3 Japanese workers in a reprocessing plant that got stupid by using a steel bucket instead of the multi-million machine intended for the purpose). Just this year, in the USA, for oil and natural gas we have the Deepwater horizon, which killed 11. China regularly loses hundreds each year, we lost 25 in the explosion at Massey this year. 34 miners lost their lives the year before in various incidents.

Second - Let's look at Yankee Rowe - third commerical nuclear reactor. Shut down early due to concerns that the reactor vessel might be becoming brittle.
Cost: $36M in 1960, $209M in 2k dollars
Decommission: $450M($567M), worst case. $320M($403M) is the 'basis average'.
During it's life, Yankee Rowe produced 34 Billion kwh, achieving a sub-performing 74% capacity factor - most of the newer reactors still in service are well over 90%.
So, going by an average 3 cents a kwh, that's $1.02B in electricity produced. That leaves $244M for operations and profit during it's time. So not very expensive, though not as good as would be hoped. If you go by the worst case decommission costs. Basis average would be a lot better, as would it have been if the reactor had lasted it's expected lifetime.

Third - You have got to be kidding me. 19.4% in 2007

Fourth - So nuclear power needs loan guarantees to proceed. Wind and Solar power need cash subsidies, often in excess of half their cost! Heck, your 'clean coal' got more subsidies than nuclear - $29.81/MWh for 'clean coal', Solar $24.34 and wind around $23.37, nuclear got only $1.59/MWh

In total dollars:
Refined Coal: $2,156M
Solar: $14M
Wind: $724M
Nuclear: $1,267M

The biggest problem with coal is air pollution. There is technology available to reduce pollution to negligible levels, but nobody wants to use it because it's "too expensive". Instead of flushing a few Billion down the toilet with nuclear power, we could put that money into clean coal technology.

Still have the problems with fly ash and such, so it's still not 'clean', and at that point your 'clean coal' is more expensive to install than nuclear, as well as more expensive to operate.