Robatoy wrote:
On Jun 7, 3:49 pm, dpb wrote:
I'd have to look up CANDU but I don't
think its power density rates any higher than that of conventional
LWRs; its advantage is low-enrichment cost and the continuous refueling
facility.

CANDU's are fuelled on the fly, but initial capital cost is very high.
Ontario Power Generation is now considering a LWR.

Probably the wiser choice...(says an old PWR guy... )...

I'd think the $/MWe would quite possibly be higher for CANDU given layout.

A lot of people I know/knew has worked or now works for OPG. Their
scrapping the SuperCritical plans had everything to do with the cost
of plumbing. None of those to be found in this network. Mind you,
those studies were done in the 30's. 12" walled pipe? Prolly not. But
thick and expensive nonetheless.

Ages and ages ago had number of acquaintances at Chalk River but nobody
at OPG.

With current technology the overall plant is often actually
cheaper/smaller owing to the reduction elsewhere in fuel handling
equipment sizing, pulverizer size/numbers, ash handling, etc., etc.,
etc. despite the complications required for the supercritical working fluid.

There's no reason one couldn't build smaller supercritical units for
smaller grids that I can see...it's just that the current market is
primarily overseas at the moment although B&W has a couple of current
projects in that size range (altho I think they're both at least
two-unit stations).

So, the supercritical boiler is alive and well... (At least outside
the US where progress hasn't had the plug pulled, anyway....)

Our biggest generators are 850's and that's already a bit of a pain in
the ass when taking spinning reserve into account. Everybody was
always happy to see Big Alice come on line....not.

When I was doing coal analyzers and SaskPower was one customer, there
was a new B&W-supplied unit finishing up just east of Weyburn (this
15(?) years ago or maybe longer now...my where does time go? ). I
don't recall particulars on it other than another mine-mouth plant but
it was pretty large (at least that of Poplar River and Koronach and
probably larger) iirc. Not sure of cycle constants for it.

Speaking spinning reserve... I always thought that super tankers
should have at least 30% of empty tanks on board... a set of big
transfer pumps and presto... spring a leak, dump the leaking tank into
an empty one.

Interesting thought, but how often is there/has there been a significant
tanker leak that wasn't associated w/ serious trouble rather than just a
single/simple tank leak? Seems to me my recollection is they're
generally in extreme circumstances (albeit sometimes of own making a la
Exxon Valdez). Maybe not; just a conception, not data/researched...

--