Possibilities for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?

[pennywise]

Your analogy breaks down, if the "shoe" was the power plant.

Shoe is not power plant. Shoe is MWh.

Besides, all US nuclear plants were standardised mass products since 70s AFAIK.

[pennywise]

No, they have been going to larger and larger cores in order to save on the number of operators.

But the early plants were ~100-300 MW, and many countries are installing plants of this size still, even though they have demand the larger plants - because the smaller plants are cheaper to build.

Smaller number of operators equals greater economical competitiveness. Exactly what I told you.

And yes, big prices of nuclear plants are ploblem sometimes, because it may take up 20 to 30 years for investment to return profit. That is longer than a normal private invester is ready to wait. But if a state is invester, than the wait is possible. The amout of money invested than depends on financial strength of that country, yes.

Distant places or consumers of huge amounts of power. Aluminum refining comes to mind, as do petroleum refineries. Refineries currently use about seven percent of feedstock on site for energy and if that 7% of feedstock would pay for the life cycle cost of the nuclear power plant, it only makes sense to use one. Who can do the financial analysis?

Fair idea.

[KitemanSA]

Your analogy breaks down, if the "shoe" was the power plant.

Shoe is not power plant. Shoe is MWh.
Besides, all US nuclear plants were standardised mass products since 70s AFAIK.

And this is where you would be wrong. Each and every plant was designed and engineered individually for a specific size and for the location in which it was to be installed. They had to go thru not 1 but 2 detailed, expensive and time consuming certification processes, one for the reactor design ande one for the site.
One of the rationals behind the small, modular units is the "pre-certification" of the reactor design and the possibility that once a SITE was certified, a fair number of modular plants could be installed without additional certifications.
But without reprocessing, it is still questionalbly economic to install any new plants.

[BenTC]

we must build units as big as technology and energy markets allow it (but not bigger).

Mostly correct, although you need to account for spinning reserve. Simplistically... if you would provide 1GVA of power to the grid with a single 1GVA unit, you need a whole additional 1GVA spare, effectively costing you 2GVA to provide 1GVA to the grid. If you used two 0.5GVA units, then you only need a spare 0.5GVA, effectively costing you 1.5GVA to provide 1GVA to the grid.

[pennywise]

And this is where you would be wrong. Each and every plant was designed and engineered individually for a specific size and for the location in which it was to be installed. They had to go thru not 1 but 2 detailed, expensive and time consuming certification processes, one for the reactor design ande one for the site.
One of the rationals behind the small, modular units is the "pre-certification" of the reactor design and the possibility that once a SITE was certified, a fair number of modular plants could be installed without additional certifications.
But without reprocessing, it is still questionalbly economic to install any new plants.

I stand corrected. TBH, I heard that they needed a whole truck only to move documentation papers when they were preparing to build third reactor in Olkiluoto, Finland.
But stil, while pre-certification could make reactors more economically viable, I find hard to believe, that they can get in front of big reactors that way. Hyperion has promises, but I will require a working and investment-returning reactor to believe it.

[TallDave]

But without reprocessing, it is still questionalbly economic to install any new plants.

Irritatingly, most of the economic questions for mainstream power sources are now actually questions of how much the government will punish or reward a particular energy source. That's why we're building lots of corn ethanol plants (even though we could import sugar-based ethanol from Brazil for considerably less) but no nukes as of yet.

And yes, big prices of nuclear plants are ploblem sometimes, because it may take up 20 to 30 years for investment to return profit. That is longer than a normal private invester is ready to wait.

Nah, that's why amortization was invented. The reason people don't want to invest isn't the high capital costs (those are offset by the dead certainty of low fuel costs), it's the uncertainty of whether the regulatory framework will allow the plant to built and operated at a profit, For decades there have been legions of activists working day and night to prevent such an outcome, and generally being successful.

[Helius]

But without reprocessing, it is still questionalbly economic to install any new plants.

Irritatingly, most of the economic questions for mainstream power sources are now actually questions of how much the government will punish or reward a particular energy source. That's why we're building lots of corn ethanol plants (even though we could import sugar-based ethanol from Brazil for considerably less) but no nukes as of yet.

And yes, big prices of nuclear plants are ploblem sometimes, because it may take up 20 to 30 years for investment to return profit. That is longer than a normal private invester is ready to wait.

Nah, that's why amortization was invented. The reason people don't want to invest isn't the high capital costs (those are offset by the dead certainty of low fuel costs), it's the uncertainty of whether the regulatory framework will allow the plant to built and operated at a profit, For decades there have been legions of activists working day and night to prevent such an outcome, and generally being successful.

Woa Dave, Never have I seen so much correctness in so few words. Right on.

Probably The biggest dynamic for loan guarantees for plant construction is that it holds the federal government financially responsible for failure due to changes in the regulatory environment during plant construction. Those that want to maintain high and indeterminate costs for plant construction *hate* federal loan guarantees.