Does a new approach to nuclear make economic sense?

[bananas]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/does-a-new-approach-to-nuclear-make-economic-sense/

Does a new approach to nuclear make economic sense?

Small, mass-produced reactors could be the future, but only if they get cheaper.

by Kate Prengaman - May 30 2013, 11:00am PDT

Today, every nuclear power plant is unique, custom-built and run by site-specifically trained employees. This makes reactor construction expensive and, some argue, less safe because repairs require custom parts and one-off solutions. In recent years, nuclear energy advocates have been promoting an alternative—smaller, modular reactors that could be mass-produced. These cheaper, smaller, and standardized units could be a power solution for industries and municipalities that are looking to lower their carbon dioxide footprint.

But a paper by Ahmed Abdulla, Inês Lima Azevedo, and M. Granger Morgan finds that the small module reactor solution may not actually be cost effective yet.

<snip>

Several American companies are actively developing this technology, but without a sample of active small reactors to study, there was no hard economic data for the researchers to use. Instead, the researchers careful quantified the average opinions of industry experts. The researchers presented 16 experts with a variety of installation scenarios and asked them to estimate the cost per kilowatt of reactor capability and the time required for construction.

As you might expect, opinions varied widely. Although the experts remain anonymous, most work for companies developing smaller reactor technology. The median cost estimates for a kilowatt of electricity produced by a single 45 MWe reactor ranged from $4,000 to $16,000. For comparison, the cost estimates for 1000-MWe large light water reactor ranged from $2,600 to $6,600.

<snip>

PNAS, May, 2013. DOI :10.1073/pnas.1300195110

[bananas]

1. Expert assessments of the cost of light water small modular reactors

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/22/1300195110

Expert assessments of the cost of light water small modular reactors

Ahmed Abdulla1, Inês Lima Azevedo, and M. Granger Morgan

Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved April 26, 2013 (received for review January 9, 2013)

Abstract

Analysts and decision makers frequently want estimates of the cost of technologies that have yet to be developed or deployed. Small modular reactors (SMRs), which could become part of a portfolio of carbon-free energy sources, are one such technology. Existing estimates of likely SMR costs rely on problematic top-down approaches or bottom-up assessments that are proprietary. When done properly, expert elicitations can complement these approaches. We developed detailed technical descriptions of two SMR designs and then conduced elicitation interviews in which we obtained probabilistic judgments from 16 experts who are involved in, or have access to, engineering-economic assessments of SMR projects. Here, we report estimates of the overnight cost and construction duration for five reactor-deployment scenarios that involve a large reactor and two light water SMRs. Consistent with the uncertainty introduced by past cost overruns and construction delays, median estimates of the cost of new large plants vary by more than a factor of 2.5. Expert judgments about likely SMR costs display an even wider range. Median estimates for a 45 megawatts-electric (MWe) SMR range from $4,000 to $16,300/kWe and from $3,200 to $7,100/kWe for a 225-MWe SMR. Sources of disagreement are highlighted, exposing the thought processes of experts involved with SMR design. There was consensus that SMRs could be built and brought online about 2 y faster than large reactors. Experts identify more affordable unit cost, factory fabrication, and shorter construction schedules as factors that may make light water SMRs economically viable.

[Archaic]

2. If a decent, clean and secure reactor existed, they could retrofit ugly coal sites.

I know of a 50MW coal plant that's just awful. It's the job center for a town though, so they'll fight forever to keep it operating as will their state and local reps.

If a 50MW drop-in reactor could be placed there instead, using the same lines with minor modifications, one of the worst polluting sites in the area could become cleaner while a better solution is found.

I don't like nuclear for all the generally discussed reasons. But I think something like this could go a long way to ridding us of some of the really bad sites. A tiny windfarm outproduces this coal plant. But that windfarm wouldn't be in or near this town, which would basically kill all the jobs there.

What do you tell a town of 700 people if you're going to kill 100+ jobs at one place? Glad I don't have to figure this one out.

[JayhawkSD]

3. Don't even think about it.

No one talks about the problem of waste disposal, but it is right now an enormous problem. Waste is stored onsite, waiting for someone to figure out what to do with it, and the amount of it continues to grow. It will continue to be incredibly toxic for thousands of years.

The idea proposed here makes the waste disposal problem orders of magnitude worse.

[AndyTiedye]

4. Nuclear Power is Obsolete

Nuclear power is an obscenely expensive, dangerous, and dirty way to boil water.
To do so in places vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis (e.g. Japan, California) is simply insane.

Solar power is getting cheaper all the time. By the time you could get a new nuke built, the power it generates would be too expensive to sell.

No more nukes.

[modrepub]

5. "Market Based" Utility Sector

With more states freeing their electric systems from the regulatory framework I find it even less likely that nuclear plants will be built anytime in the near future. In PA there's a mad scramble to permit and build a new line of combined-cycle gas-fired power plants based mainly on the current and projected cost of gas. Little if any other fossil fuel generation is being built, which should cause some concern should gas prices increase significantly or there is an interruption of gas service