On 25/10/13 16:09, Arfa Daily wrote:


"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.

i.e. almost weapons grade enrichment.


Arfa


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.