"We’re looking at a fleet of SMRs. We have no interest in building a few and walking away"

[FBaggins]

[Center]SMR Alliances go for $452M In DOE gold
Four consortiums line up but only two can win[/center]

They are vying for a piece of the U.S. Department of Energy’s $452 million cost-shared funding program for licensing and engineering support to develop small modular reactors, e.g., less than 300 MW.

DOE Deputy Assistant Secretary John Kelly told the conference that it was taking place on the day the proposals were due. “Your work is ending,” he said. “Ours is just beginning.” Kelly committed to making an award to one or two firms by the end of September and having the funds in the hands of the winner(s) by the end of the year.

And Kelly made a sweeping promise to the group about how the DOE money would impact market acceptance of SMR technology. “We’re looking at a fleet of SMRs. We have no interest in building a few and walking away.”

A panel of energy economists who spoke at the conference thinks a fleet is feasible. Stanford University’s Geoffrey Rothwell said that the cumulative effect of jumpstarting the industry now is that the U.S. could be building the equivalent of as many as 14 100-MW SMRs every year by 2030 for domestic energy production and export.

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2012/05/smr-alliances-go-for-452m-in-doe-gold.html

The final two paragraphs are interesting. One vendor is reportedly offering DOE a "money back guarantee" if it fails to gain a license

[AtheistCrusader]

1. The money back guarantee is neat and all

but there isn't a whole lot of need for this type of power supply, outside maybe some remote locations, like towns in Alaska, where diesel has to be shipped in for electrical power.

But they probably can't afford it, either.

So who is going to buy a bunch of 100-300mw nuclear reactors? Given the ancillary costs around fuel, security, etc.

[FBaggins]

2. I think you may have overemphasized the "small" part.

They're "small" compared to other reactors, but by no means small in absolute terms (from a generating standpoint).

There are in the neighborhood of 1,400 coal-fired units in the U.S. - Almost 1,000 of them would qualify as "small" by this standard (as would about 5,000 of the 5,500 gas-fired units and just about every wind/solar plant in existence)

[AtheistCrusader]

3. I didn't say 'small'.

I said 100-300mw, and specified ancillary costs that are not present for many other generating sources.

There are security costs around any isotope source that are not present for a wind turbine, for instance. Lock a door, put a fence around it, you can leave wind turbines strewn all over the damn place.

Not so with a reactor.

[FBaggins]

4. You said "outside of remote locations"

Specifically those that currently use diesel generators.

100-300 MWs is far too large for that. For comparison, the largest diesel generator produced by the largest manufacturer (Cat) is about 17.5 MWs. If you think that's their target market, you've misunderstood their size. They are intended to replace full-scale fossil-fuel units.

and specified ancillary costs that are not present for many other generating sources

You specificed "fuel" and "security". Fuel costs are obviously far lower than gas/coal/oil/diesel, so that's not an issue. It's a tiny percentage of the lifetime cost of reactors (and many SMRs are deisigned for long refeuling intervals - or none at all). Security costs are similarly a small portion of the overall expense.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Hawaii is not too large.

Granted, remote Alaskan towns are generally small, but there are 'large' remote locations as well. Maui and the Big Island could each absorb one of these reactors. (290mw each)

Fuel costs don't compare on a year to year scale, but when you're done burning a barrel of oil, and everything is past the scrubbers, it's gone. No more cost.

Nuclear fuel has very long term costs to store.

Then there's emergency planning and contingencies. Placing reactors on volcanoes would present interesting safety mitigation.

[FBaggins]

7. Those "long term costs" really aren't all that large.

We haven't done an adequate job of planning for that long term storage, but it isn't a big expense relative to the rest of the lifetime cost of a reactor.

everything is past the scrubbers, it's gone. No more cost.

Really?

Let's ignore global climate change costs (huge), and just look at the ash that remains from coal plants.

http://www.ecodaddyo.com/coal-ash-ponds-new-mexico

"No more cost" indeed.

[bananas]

10. The nuclear industry has a long history of egregiously underestimating costs.

Only a fool would believe their cost estimates for long term storage.

[WriteWrong]

8. Security costs for nuclear require an MIC. Diesel and solar don't. Hardly a small cost.

[FBaggins]

9. Were you under the impression that the military would go away if we didn't have nuclear power?

What's the incremental cost for each new reactor? Does the air force buy six new fighters for each reactor?

[WriteWrong]

12. Would? Doubt it. Could? Yes, definitely. Should? Yes, definitely.

In addition, our MIC is probably an order of magnitude larger than it would be if we had listened to early critics of nuclear power making this same point BEFORE the world was covered with reactors and the need to protect them (or the blind refusal to, as in Japan's case).

[kristopher]

6. (14) 100-MW SMRs/year by 2030

(14) 100-MW SMRs/year by 2030

"We have no interest in building a few and walking away.”

"

[bananas]

11. And the first one in 2022 - yeah, that'll stop global warming!

"The role of the government, he said, is take some of the uncertainties out of the process of deploying the first commercial SMR on the grid by 2022."

There's no point in even building one of these.
They are dirty, dangerous, expensive, and unnecessary.

[Kolesar]

13. They won't find 100 American communities that will accept one of these bombs

Their plan is to place them "... inside the emergency planning zones of existing nuclear reactors or at nuclear sites...". That is as far as they will get. Even a dumb shit like Governor Kasich isn't going to tie himself to one of these anchors and jump into the sea of public relations fights.

Further, their idea of using them for heating buildings is a Soviet-styled fantasy.