Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
Comments
I generally think small reactors are a bad idea -- the whole point of nuclear is economies OF SCALE. But until someone leads the way, we're just stumbling around in the valley of the blind. I think that once the first new reactor actually gets seriously moving the dominoes will start to fall -- but how to get to that point?
Why bring up "the really old style of reactors, for example the Chernobyl style" when no Chernobyl-style reactors were ever licensed or operated in the United States? It's a moot point.
He did make one non-moot point: "The nuclear reactors today, we believe, are far safer than the ones that were built 20 and 30 years ago."
Since no new nuclear plants have been licensed since the 1979 accident at TMI, I have to believe that the majority of nuclear plants operating today fall into the category of those built 20 and 30 years ago. Dr. Chu statement that today's nuclear reactors are safer implies that the older reactors are not safe. How reassuring is that statement to the general public?
Dr. Chu speaks the kind of gibberish that one would expect from a politician, not a scientist.
Maybe - just maybe - it indicates that Chu actually expresses himself rather than mounting the pre-taped, glib replies. I'm sure that, if I had to reply off the cuff to a reporter, I would sound like an idiot too. But then again, I'm not running the DoE.
As a strong advocate for smaller reactors, please let me assure you that I understand scale economies. However, you do not have to obtain an economic advantage of scale by making bigger and bigger units.
You can obtain scale much more easily if you make units that are the right size for the application and then make them in the quantity that is needed to serve all of the interested customers.
Take a hard look at the combustion gas turbines that have dominated the market for new power plant capacity in the United States for the past couple of decades. The manufacturers achieved economy by selecting a couple of sizes that would fit a variety of needs - including propelling aircraft, ships, and power generation. Even if the customer was a relatively small market like a cooperative utility or an island, there was a combustion turbine that could serve their needs - either by itself or in plants with a number of individual units operating in parallel.
By ensuring that the generation equipment could meet the needs of a number of different customers, the manufacturers could establish efficient production systems that could use interchangeable parts, automation, and repeatable steps to drive down the unit costs. Those are ideas that have driven manufacturing cost improvements for a couple of hundred years.
We have some people leading the way. Watch B&W, Hyperion, NuScale, Areva, and perhaps even Westinghouse figure out that building 100 machines that each generate 100 MW can be cheaper and more predictable than building 10 machines that generate 1000 MW. Since there are more markets that can accept 100 MW machines, the first case might actually result in a market demand for a total of 20,000 MW instead of being limited to the 10,000 MW that can fit a 1000 MW machine into their grid.
Those are just example numbers, my analysis shows that the market expanding effect of smaller machines will be far great than a doubling of the potential demand.