Reply With Quote
Has any place in the world used more standardized reactor design?
If true, could the costs associated with them be studied?
To me, the whole point is moot until a realistic disposal framework is set up....not the hit and miss approach we currently employ.
I'm a fan of nuclear energy...I really want to see it happen in this country on a large scale. But, until we solve the disposal riddle, everything else is secondary.
Has any place in the world used more standardized reactor design?
If true, could the costs associated with them be studied?
Has this never been done before?
It's unlikely you could do that. Each region has it's own grid ingress issues as well as environmental concerns.
1000mw is 1000mw is 1000mw.
actually, the US Navy has probably come the closest to standardization.
$3850/kW is not equal to $9500/kW.
What do you think are some of the differences in a Naval installation vs. Civilian?
no factual basis?
when has the cost of nuclear power, building or delivering, GONE DOWN? here or in France, or any country with nuclear plants? The Finns have huge disaster right now with their latest build.
Lifespan?
I believe your factual basis for these statements is false.
I'm still unconvinced that cost is the ultimate metric for measuring success....and even then, it's irrelevant if we cannot dispose of the waste successfully for the long term.
Example...building 30 identical Virginia class nuclear submarines as opposed to building 30 custom nuclear submarines.
Tell me, what are the differences in building a nuke plant for a submarine vs. a nuke plant for civilian use?
I believe you are just talking out your ass to be irritating.
No. More standardized examples have already been pointed out to you by the OP article and TeyshaBlue.
Perhaps you didn't read them or just chose to ignore them.
None of them were standardized. Perhaps it is you with the reading comprehension issues.
Perhaps you have an unrealistic definition of the term and also fail to realize there are degrees of standardization that already exist in nuclear plant design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#...specifications
The AP1000 is a two-loop PWR planned to produce a net 1154 MWe. [4] [5]
The design is less expensive to build than other Gen III plants partly because it uses existing technology. The design also decreases the number of components, including pipes, wires, and valves. Standardization and type-licensing should also help reduce the time and cost of construction.
The AP1000 will be manufactured in modules designed for rail or barge shipment. This will allow the construction of many modules in parallel. The plant is designed to have fuel load 36 months after concrete is first poured. This construction period is much shorter than generation II designs. If achieved, it should greatly decrease the interest costs needed to build the plant. Such reductions would make the design much more economically compe ive against other power sources than previous generation nuclear plants.
Proposed standardization will no doubt help, but you cannot produce cookie cutter nuke plants for differing regions/climates/grid resources.
And hey, they only needed $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to build a couple of AP1000s in Georgia.
The free market works!
I'm working on a bid right now. Later.
Nonsense!
All they need to do is hook a submarine up to the grid.
do you think we'll need iran's approval for this?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
