Comments on: Micro-Nuclear: No Panacea

By: AnObserver

AnObserver — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:01:51 +0000

One nice aspect of this technology is that at some point it’ll become entirely possible to install and use these without government interference simply by avoiding telling them it’s there. At that point a great advance for individual liberty will be achievable…. For my part, I’d do it in a heartbeat if I could afford it. Imagine, entirely off the grid, self-sustaining with individually owned and controlled water and power sources! That opens some great new vistas!

By: Margaret Harding

Margaret Harding — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:23:42 +0000

Nice summary of available options.

With the advent of the Russian’s floating reactor concept, when are we going to start seriously considering nuclear propulsion for COMMERCIAL ships. Super tankers, cargo ships, luxury cruise ships could all benefit from the elimination of large diesel generators and their lovely large smokestacks.

Rod hits many good points regarding the hurdles that lie ahead for these manufacturers. I’m certain that for mini-nukes to succeed in the US, a fundamental change in the licensing, manufacturing, and construction process must occur. Otherwise, economies of scale simply will not be able to be leveraged.

By: Rod Adams

Rod Adams — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:02:24 +0000

Smaller nuclear power plants offer significant cost saving opportunities, though there is no guarantee that the developers will be successful in their efforts to implement those potential savings.

Ever since Eli Whitney showed the world that producing identical machines with interchangeable parts could lead to much lower unit costs through repetition and high volume production, there has been a recognition in manufacturing that series production leads to unit volume economies.

If there is a market for a certain quantity of electricity, the number of units required to produce that electricity will, by definition, increase if each unit is significantly smaller. It will take 10 times as many B&W mPower™ reactors to produce 10,000 MWe than AP-1000’s. Every component of the B&W mPower™ will also see a large increase in unit deman without any increase in first of a kind costs. If you look at something like the Hyperion Power Generator, it will require 50 times as many units as an AP-1000.

The other aspect that encourages me to be a large fan of smaller reactor systems is my observation of the overall energy market. There are millions of generators and propulsion motors burning diesel fuel, residual oil and natural gas in the power output range of 1-150 MW. There are many markets out there that the established nuclear plant developers have completely ignored, even though the customers in those markets apparently want power so desperately that they are willing to pay 10-50 cents per kilowatt hour just for fuel for their machines.

I will grant that competitors to smaller atomic generators and propulsion motors will work very hard with their government representatives to raise as many barriers to entry as possible. My hope is that they will be unsuccessful if the smaller unit developers recognize the true motives driving their opposition and work to defeat them.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.

By: John Droz

John Droz — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:51:58 +0000

Here is another perspective:
“http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2009/July/Nuclears_Model_T.cfm”.

By: A Conservative Teacher

A Conservative Teacher — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:31:35 +0000

The main cost, as I understand it, for nuclear power are all the regulations, fees, and red tape that the government has thrown up to stop any new power plants from being built. I assume they would do the same for ‘micro-nuclear power plants.’ And coal power is also not a possibility either- in Michigan (US), the governor banned any more from being built, regardless of whether they are safe, prosperous, and sound. Worship at the alter of wind turbines and solar power, the politicians now say.

By: Edward Kee

Edward Kee — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:47:32 +0000

An excellent summary. If the only innovation in micro-nukes is the size, total (fixed plus variable) costs per unit of electricity produced are likely to be even higher than for normal (i.e., large) nuclear plants.

However, if there are other innovations that can lower costs (capital costs, regulatory and environmental costs, fixed operating costs and even fuel costs), these designs may be cost-effective.

The reason that nuclear plants are 1,000 MW or larger is that (1) the fixed costs (licensing, staff, etc.) can be spread across more MWh, and (2) economies of scale (it costs less to build one large containment building than to build 10 or more small containment buildings).

I encourage the micro-nuke developers to push on in their efforts to find ways to deliver nuclear power.