5 Comments

  1. As much as I enjoy the enthusiasm of B&W for the Mpower reactor, being first to produce power is a real long shot.
    The competition has long since filed their design certification applications. The lead site for each of those designs have submitted their COLs.
    B&W has released a target of 1st quarter of 2012 for design application submittal (Not the 1st quarter of 2010 erroneously listed on the NRC web site). There is no reference site yet for an Mpower reactor (although TVA is considering it).
    A shorter build time can only do so much for catching up.
    Bill

  2. “A shorter build time can only do so much for catching up.”
    True, but easier financing might more than make up for that.

  3. ?A shorter build time can only do so much for catching up.?
    One of the favorite arguments of solar advocates is that it takes too long to build a nuke and that solar can come on line faster.
    If you take the capacity of the new nuke in being built in Finland (near the arctic circle) times the design CF times design life you get about 18,000 MW-years of generating capacity per year of construction.
    However, the plant is taking two years longer to build so now we are down to 13,000 MW-years of generating capacity per year of construction. On the positive side if the plant runs longer than designed we could get 20,000 MW-years of generating capacity per year of construction.
    Then I use the same method for my favorite utility scale solar PV systems and get 30 MW-years of generating capacity per year of construction.
    So no, you can not catch up bu building smaller.

  4. Kit, are years of construction fixed regardless of capacity? They might be, today, but you aren’t “thinking outside the box”. If someone came up with a nuclear power module that would be safe regardless of where it was sited, then construction could be as simple as pouring a concrete pad, putting the module on it, and hooking up the wires.
    You wouldn’t even need a license for the site, just a design that was NRC certified, and a module prebuilt to that design. All you’d need was 20 days, perhaps, not 20 years.

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Russian Nuclear Expansion Challenged by "Ecologists"

    My Google news alert yesterday pointed me to a story that surprised me. The link description indicated that it was from the St. Petersburg Times and gave a headline telling me that there was some opposition to a nuclear plant expansion. I subscribed to the St. Petersburg Times when I lived on the Florida west…

  • Misguided Colorado resident

    There is a letter to the editor that was published on colorado.com on July 11 titled Nuclear Power: Boon or bane that needs some response. The people from Fort Collins deserve to learn from people know a more about the subject. Unfortunately, I have very limited time today. Any takers?

  • PBMR Update – 11 August 2006

    Creamer Media Engineering News Online has recently published several articles about the PBMR and the project status. One article titled How PBMR’s Work provides good information about the history and design choices made during the lengthy refinement period since the late 1950s when Rudolf Schulten first developed the concept of enclosing nuclear fuel into graphite…

  • Uranium supplies – virtually unlimited in comparison to demand

    This is a thought piece, not a detailed statistical assessment. I have about 20 minutes to jot down a few ideas that I want to share widely to encourage conversation and perhaps later some additional study. The idea that uranium supplies are limited to a few decades at most is being widely repeated; often by…