Slashdot Mirror


US Small-Scale Nuclear Reactor Industry Gains Traction In Missouri

trichard writes with this quote from an AP report: "Ameren Missouri is vying to be the first utility in the country to seek a construction and operating license for a small-scale nuclear reactor, a technology that's appealing to utilities because of the smaller upfront costs and shorter development lead times. The small reactors, about a fourth or less the capacity of full-size nuclear units, are appealing to the nuclear industry because they could be manufactured at a central plant and shipped around the world. By contrast, building nuclear reactors today is a more cumbersome process that must be done largely on site and takes years."

20 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. How does the MTBF scale? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do lots of smaller reactors fail at a rate statistically below or at least equal to a single larger reactor that generates the same amount of power?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do lots of smaller reactors fail at a rate statistically below or at least equal to a single larger reactor that generates the same amount of power?

      From TFS:

      "Ameren Missouri is vying to be the first utility in the country to seek a construction and operating license for a small-scale nuclear reactor,

      Guessing this means it's probably far to early to tell...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      California is the 8th largest economy in the world, or so. It is in no way Communist, perhaps it has some social programs but that is not communism. Communism is a real thing, not just some slur you use against people wealthier than you.

    3. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by honestmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suppose it depends on the design, but a smaller reactor can be built so that if it loses cooling it just shuts down (i.e. the reaction stops), not melts down. I remember reading about this a long time ago, about how we could have reactors in neighborhoods with no problems. Oh wait, here we go:

      "Most [small reactors] are also designed for a high level of passive or inherent safety in the event of malfunction. A 2010 report by a special committee convened by the American Nuclear Society showed that many safety provisions necessary, or at least prudent, in large reactors are not necessary in the small designs forthcoming."

      From http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html.

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    4. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's OK, they'll make them at Foxconn.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    5. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by Renraku · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A small reactor in simulations fails about as much as a big reactor, only it can be built to be a tomb if something goes wrong and the worst happens. Look at B&W's mPower modular reactor design, for example.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    6. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by interkin3tic · · Score: 3

      I don't follow. Californians pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. They contribute more to the nation's finances than they consume = they're pulling more than their weight.

      Or is there an exception that I haven't heard about where if a state is facing a deficit, they don't need to pay federal taxes? Because if so, then those thousands of dollars I gave to the IRS, I'd like them back.

      Sorry to sound bitter, but it's personal: California is not fucking dead weight, Tennessee and other red states that take in more federal funding than they contribute are dead weight. Worse actually: they're a drain on the economy. California keeps it's budget problems in-state.

    7. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by honestmonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      The folks (I was going to say idiots, but perhaps they just don't understand science) commenting a few levels up and down around here that worry about safety need to read about this - LFTR reactors. From Wikipedia and memory, they can be made inherently safe. That is, they can't melt down. No China syndrome. It's not that they have absolutely no safety measures, it's that you need fewer of them, and don't have to worry about the reactor like those in Fukushima. If something happens to the cooling, the reactor automatically shuts down. Not "the sensors pick up a rise in temperature so the blast doors start to automatically close" kind of shut down, but "the thing doesn't work if the cooling isn't in place, so no reaction".

      Anyway, yeah, I'm just a shill for the nuclear industry. Caught me. Dang.

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    8. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by mhotchin · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Japanese reactors are over 40 years old. Comparing modern designs to that is like saying my 2008 Lexus will have the same kind of failure rates as a 1968 .

      The two are not even comparable.

    9. Re:How does the MTBF scale? by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      A good portion of the 'high upfront cost' is that the company still has to keep the construction workers on the payroll while they grind the injunctions through the court system to get them lifted. Lawyers aren't cheap. Neither are construction crews. And when the injunction is lifted, they have to inspect 100% and repair any damage caused to the portions of the plant exposed to the elements while work is stopped waiting for the courts to dismiss those injunctions.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  2. Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Soon you'll finally have electricity!

    Running water won't be far behind!

  3. These can be boons for small towns... by mlts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For a small town, a small (~220 MW) plant will come very handy. It helps ensure they will be up if the grid goes down, that businesses would have a utility power guarantee, and it also gives clean power without having to deal with a coal or other fossil fuel plant.

    I keep seeing these pieces of a puzzle popping up on /. that would solve the core problems our culture faces. A wind turbine to pull water from the air here, small reactors there, isobutane from CO2, better batteries from IBM, and self driving cars. Putting these technologies together, and we have done a lot for the transportation infrastructure. The reactors would give reliable power, which can be used to charge batteries on electric vehicles or make usable fuel for IC engines. Road congestion and even the need for a vehicle (as opposed to just renting one for a trip) would be eased by self driving cars.

    I just wish some of these cool potential ideas came into practical use. Self driving cars would allow for a lot of flexibility especially.

    As energy availability improves, so do economies.

  4. Re:Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone have technical details for the reactors?

    Of course! Just let us know your location and we'll send a team to deliver them.


    Sincerely,
    The FBI

  5. Re:NIMBY by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is kind of my view of the future. Have very small nuclear reactors, the kind you find on Navy Submarines that can be used to power a very small area, maybe just a single subdivision. Mass producing small, self contained reactors would probably bring the costs and complexity down quite a bit. Plus distribution would be much cheaper, because you wouldn't have to have super high capacity lines going all over the place. Nuclear power isn't that scary. I see no reason that we allow people to have gas furnaces and water heaters in their houses, but do not allow them to have a small scale nuclear reactor.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  6. Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... by bjwest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    have been in use by the U.S. Navy for decades. They've plenty of safety and failure rate data on them, they've got a high safety rating, and they're pretty small. Start mass producing them suckers and they'll be cheap as hell. Start peppering the power grid with them here and there, and soon we'll have clean, virtually unlimited power. Most counties in the country can get by with one, and still have plenty of power to spare which can be sold off to the larger cities that need would more than one.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
    1. Re:Small Scale Nuclear Power Plants... by compro01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      have been in use by the U.S. Navy for decades. They've plenty of safety and failure rate data on them, they've got a high safety rating, and they're pretty small.

      They also require weapons-grade uranium for fuel, which kinda rules out their use in civilian applications.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  7. Re:Figures by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 3, Funny

    Running water won't be far behind!

    Just don't run a Gieger counter over it.

  8. The Real Travestry by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Ameren said the application process could cost $80 million to $100 million and take four years."

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  9. Not quite true... by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The small reactors, about a fourth or less the capacity of full-size nuclear units, are appealing to the nuclear industry because they could be manufactured at a central plant and shipped around the world. By contrast, building nuclear reactors today is a more cumbersome process that must be done largely on site and takes years.

    That's an editorial addition by the submitter - and not part of TFA. And it's not quite right either.
     
    Regardless of the size of the plant, the major machinery is built off-site and shipped to the construction site for installation. What's time consuming and expensive on site (and it's not clear that small reactors escape this) is the labor intensive work of hooking up all the piping, wiring, and ancillary systems for the plant.
     
    What saves time and money in this kind of construction is eliminating building major machinery only on demand, and instead building it at a slow but steady and predictable pace. I.E. if you can negotiate to buy April's production in February of the previous year, you have less capital tied up (and thus pay less interest) than if you had to order your machinery two, three, or four years in advance. Though standardized serial production isn't quite the same as mass production, it has the same benefits to a lesser degree.

  10. Re:The way this could be made to work by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    None of those methods can contaminate massive areas of land all at once. You can clean up a broken windfarm with ordinary equipment, not specialized robotics, and it's a lot cheaper.

    Burning natural gas, while it does have a negative long term consequence for the entire planet, is far cheaper than nuclear, and can provide base-load generation just fine. Natural gas is ideal to use in conjunction with renewable energy because you can easily start up and shut down gas turbines as the wind/solar etc fluctuate.