On 12/02/2021 09:12, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/A...-track-for-203
0-delivery-of-UK-SMR

Rolls Royce, who uniquely do not employ Art Students to design power
stations, have completed feasibility studies on what will be if it
comes to pass, the first reactor design in Britain to have been
designed by engineers for low cost mass production,Â* using no new or
exciting technology, just doing well known stuff better and cheaper.

interestingly they address the issue of synthetic hydrocarbon fuel as
well as potential hydrogen generation.

The cost estimates are encouraging.

3-4 times cheaper on electricity than any renewable, and only twice
the current price of fossil on aviation fuel.

And capital investment in reach of private finance opening the way to
build power stations for the likes of pension fund investors without
needing government financial support.

I'm rather taken with the seismic isolation concept, 1.5 acre concrete
raft on a bed of pebbles!

Cooling water has always seemed to be an issue for siting nuclear power.
Are these small enough to manage with towers and a pond?

I think nukes always were. Seawater is just cheaper.

lets face it if a 1.2GW CCGT can get away with a cooling tower, a 46MW
SMR should be able to.

And of course other options exist. Low grade heat still has value. Think
of undersoil heating for greenhouses nearby.

And they are of course linking it to desalination as well - a nuclear
power station using seawater to cool it and evaporating and condensing
fresh water is a handy thing to have.




--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill