1. So far from what I read I like that company. Specifically the smaller, more manageable systems and ideas like underground reactors.

    I hope those that are involved there are motivated. More than just their financial success is at issue here. Much more. I also hope they can pull it off and improve the nuclear power technology footprint in this country and elsewhere.

  2. Rod – can you get us some pictures or technical details that are not proprietary? For example, which software language are they using for the operating system? Will the simulator be qualified for engineering analyses or just operator training? Have they decided how many units will be operated from a common control room and how many operators will be required? My understanding is that the last question is still being negotiated with the NRC.

    1. @Atomicrabbit

      I will ask some of my colleagues to attempt to answer your questions.

      As you might understand, there are commercial considerations involved in oversharing too early. Believe it or not, our competitors are members of the public who can also read blogs.

  3. You mention this is one control room for 2 reactors. As I understand, the current regulations require one control room per reactor. Obviously with digital control systems one control room could control dozens of reactors. Has the NRC made any decisions about changing this rule to modernize the control room technology?

  4. @Jason

    Current regulations allow for more than one reactor to be controlled from one control room.

    The table in 10 CFR 50.54 includes a column for staffing levels for two reactors controlled by a single control room.


    The NRC has been studying the impact of digital control systems and the potential for even more units to be controlled from a single room, but no rule changes have been issued.


Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts