SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Krowbar who wrote (46991)7/25/1999 12:28:00 AM
From: Michael M  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
Delbert, I may have suggested you were nuts the other night. No doubt you are, if I said so :-)

In my squinty eyes however, you've rebounded to genius status tonight with your observation re. replication of safe, efficient design in the proliferation of nuke power plants.

Long time since I've paid any attention to goings on in this arena but seem to recall France and other countries benefiting greatly from this very sensible approach.

That is all for now. Carry on.



To: Krowbar who wrote (46991)7/25/1999 5:12:00 AM
From: nihil  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
TSC (total system cost) is hard to measure. As an economist, I always preferred to measure it in dollars. The engineers usually preferred a separate Btu cost. Some of the things we found 20 years ago was that DOE was pricing enriched uranium fuel cheap because they were using very cheap federally subsidized TVA coal power to run the enrichment plants at Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Portsmouth. If uranium had been priced at incremental cost, fully burdened with taxes, interest, etc. few nuclear plants could ever have broken-even just on the fuel cycle. Of course, the insurance guarantee was necessary. No power company could ever have afforded to build a nuclear plant unless they were allowed to charge their customers for construction work in progress in the rate base. It was obvious that new energy plants should be natural gas until that was gone and then move to low-sulfur coal until that was gone, then to a high sulfur coal with emissions control. Nuclear and fusion research should be continued but only introduced when environmental problems were clear enough to require action to reduce CO2 emissions.
One important omission from company cost estimates was the social cost of accidents. Since training and control instrumentation was always quite cheap, handpowered shutdown could be required in every reactor. Appropriate design could prevent with near certainty the worst disasters (China-syndrome stuff). Chernobyl was not a realistic possibility in any American or Japanese plant. (Bad design and really badly trained people at every level in the plant).
The major problem was that the U.S. industry was excessively competitive, and insufficiently concentrated. The French did a better job than us under total government control and subsidy. Some American firms did very well -- Duke Power for example, built quick cheap plants in well-planned succession and had high availability -- but Duke Power was not only the customer but the construction contractor.
No one else really came close to them in efficiency. Little companies like Illinois Power (Clinton) made stupendous, costly mistakes. They simply lacked the internal engineering knowledge to even buy a plant.
The major cost in US nuclear power plants was WIP interest. The plant sat around for 7-12 years getting built. It rarely had more than 50% availability when it was built. No company reserved enough for decommissioning cost. Demand did not grow as fast as planned (partly because the company's raised the price of electricity before the plant was in production). Several companies went belly up because of failed projects or accidents and as a result bond rating deteriorated because of bond defaults.
Hard to believe, but the U.S. government could probably had done a better job than "America's investor-owned utilities." Nevertheless, the next time nuclear power is needed, we had better be prepared. I believe zero tolerance design and construction is feasible and should be demanded. One must make accidents avoidable in this business. I'll pass on fusion plants for a hundred years or more. There's an old rule in chemical engineering that to get the cost of manufacture of a chemical cheap enough to make a profit you just double the plant size (and the diameter of the pipes) and the unit cost shrinks 30%. Build a big enough fusion plant and you can plan to produce energy as cheaply as you wish (better start stockpiling niobium right now). Unfortunately, the little sun will produce too much heat and use more superconducting materials than exist. Back to the drawing board.