Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Preassembled Nuclear Reactor

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 09:50 AM
Original message
A Preassembled Nuclear Reactor
A new type of nuclear reactor that is designed to be manufactured in a factory rather than built at a power plant could cut construction times for nuclear power plants almost in half and make them cheaper to build. That, in turn, could make it possible for more utilities to build nuclear power plants, especially those in poor countries. The design comes from Babcock and Wilcox, a company based in Lynchburg, VA, that has made nuclear reactors for the United States Navy ships for about 50 years.

Typically, the nuclear reactors found in commercial power plants are large, each generating more than 1,000 megawatts of electricity. That's because overall, it's cheaper to build a single, large power plant than several smaller ones, in part because it's not necessary to duplicate components such as containment walls and control rooms. But this approach also requires taking a big financial risk, which is one of the reasons that it's been decades since the last nuclear power plant was built. Each plant can cost $9 billion or more--too much for all but the largest utilities to afford--and it can take more than five years from the time that construction starts to the time that the plant starts generating electricity and providing revenue to cover construction costs, says Andrew Kadak, a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT.

The new Babcock and Wilcox reactor design could make nuclear power plants less of a financial risk, Kadak says. The reactors are much smaller, designed to generate 150 megawatts each, but could also be strung together to generate as much as a conventional nuclear power plant. They also integrate two separate components of a conventional power plant in a single package: the reactor itself and the equipment used to generate steam from the heat that the reactor produces. As a result, the entire system is small enough to be shipped on a railcar. And because the system can be shipped, it can be manufactured at a central facility and then delivered to the site of a future power plant.

...

Two other features of the design could also cut down on operating costs. First, each reactor will be housed in a containment structure big enough to store all of the waste generated by the plant during its 60 year life span, eliminating the need for a separate storage facility. That could be especially important, as nuclear plant operators may have to store their own waste while they wait for the government to provide a permanent storage facility, which it is obliged to do by law. Second, the reactors are also designed so that fuel has to be replaced only once every five years, instead of the usual two years. That will increase the amount of time that the plant can operate.

...

Although the new reactors are smaller than conventional ones, they use the same underlying technology--they're light water reactors--so Mowry says that it will be possible to get them certified under existing regulations. At least two other companies in the United States are developing small, modular light water reactors. One design, from Westinghouse, provided the template for combining the steam generator and the reactor, although it isn't designed to be built in a factory. A startup called NuScale also has a design for a small modular system that can be built in factories and shipped to power plants. Those reactors would generate only about 40 megawatts each. Other companies and researchers, including Kadak, are developing designs for future modular reactors using more advanced technology that will require a new regulatory process.

Mowry says that Babcock and Wilcox plans to file the official certification application in 2011. The company is already working with the Tennessee Valley Authority to start the process of evaluating a site for a plant that would use the reactor technology. Mowry says that the first plants using the technology could be up and running by 2018. But Mujid Kazimi, another professor of nuclear engineering at MIT, says that goal sounds "very ambitious" given what's known about the regulatory process.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22867/page1/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. Who are three meanest men in the Navy? Babcock, Wilcox and you, you son of a bitch! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yarrrrr!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincna Donating Member (282 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. What an erudite comment! - nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. It was a funny joke back in 1951...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincna Donating Member (282 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Sorry. It went right over my head
I was one year old back then
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I wasn't born at all, but it's still a standard in the navy. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Actually, I don't get it either.
:dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Babcock and Wilcox were THE designers/manufacturers of naval boilers and equipment relating to
boilers.

A huge number of folks were schooled in these things Even into the nuclear age as the nuke 'tea kettle', like a boiler, powers the vessel with steam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Yes, but.... why were they mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Learning naval boilers was no fun! So folks blamed B&W.
Boiler on battleship, TEXAS:



Training manual:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I don't know how they did those jobs.
Keeping those machines running in claustrophobic conditions. While people were trying to kill them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Cool picture but when did the Texas get converted to nuke?:)
For those that don't know BB-35, USS Texas, was commissioned in 1914 as a coal powered ship, later converted to oil and served trough WWII even though she was obsolete, before being decommissioned in 1948. She is on display near Houston. I could be wrong but I think she is the oldest surviving battleship in the world.

Yes I did look this up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I think he's just talking about the boilers, not nukes per se.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
12. Dear Sir; Please send one Modular Nuclear Reactor.



Please find my check for $400,000,000 enclosed.


Sincerely;



ALexander Kaida
Lahore, Pakistan


P.S. Are the nuclear rods included. We need highly enriched kind, if you please. Thank you, infidel.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Heh. I believe ITAR would have something to say...
about who gets to purchase them, and what kind of fuel they come with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Right. Not really a serious comment. ... . Although, Toshiba bought
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 03:59 PM by JohnWxy
the technology to mill super quiet submarine propellors and then they sold it to Russia. Now we can't hear Russian subs, unless their submariners break into dance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4OtxqTD32Y&feature=related



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. It reminds me of that old satirical defense company questionnaire...
It had a bunch of questions like

Please state your profession:
a) dictator
b) revolutionary
c) terrorist
d) federal govt
e) corporate nation-state


Product line you are interested in:
a) radar
b) cruise missile
c) nuclear warhead
d) weaponized microbes


I wish I could find that. I used to have a copy hanging in my office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. "weaponized microbes" ... I "love" DoD-speak.
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 06:29 PM by JohnWxy
I used to refer to those plastic bags they put the peanuts in on commercial flights as "nuclear hardened". It sortof creeps into your vocabulary.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-22-09 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
19. "Very ambitious" by U.S. regulatory process...
...maybe not so much elsewhere.

I suspect the next economic superpower will be whichever nation first commercializes such technology.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC