"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Bernard Peek wrote in
:

On 21/10/13 19:00, DerbyBorn wrote:
I wonder how much of the cost (and reliability risk) is derived from
such powerstations being somewhat developmental and unique.
If there was a modular - proven design, then it would be cheaper,
more serviceable and likely to be more reliable.

The Japanese have a small reactor design that is sealed for life. When
it's burned its fuel you take out the old one and drop in a
replacement. It may be too late to try standardising uranium reactors
now that thorium reactors are on the horizon.



Sounds a good concept - what about submarine power plants?


That's an interesting one. There was a programme on the TV a couple of years
back about the commissioning of the new nuclear subs in Barrow, and they
were talking to the naval officer that was in charge of all the power plant
on board. They asked him what the power output of the reactor was, and he
replied that the exact figures were classified, but he could say that it was
enough to run a small town say the size of Portsmouth I think was the
example, but might have been Southampton. I also seem to recall another
programme that was discussing submarine nuke power plants, that said that
the world's largest sub was American and was commissioned a long long time
ago (1988 ??) and ran on a couple of kilos of fissionable material that had
never needed replacing.

Arfa