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.

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 real cost in in regulatory ratchetting.(government interference)

this is the most thorough analysis I have seen.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html


--
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.

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.


--

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?

On 21/10/2013 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.

http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wils..._reactors.html


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
On 21/10/2013 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.

http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wils..._reactors.html



Any one know what this reactor consists of IE how he built it, how it works?

On 21/10/2013 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.

I'm loosely connected to some of the decommissioning projects for the
existing nuclear power stations. From what I've heard, there is an
element of over-staffing and make-work in at least some areas, which
might push up costs. I suspect it's easier to maintain a relaxed pace of
work when you're inside an secure facility where outside scrutiny is
difficult, if only for security reasons.

On 22/10/2013 02:06, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/10/2013 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.

http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wils..._reactors.html




To the layman this is mighty impressive. What does TNP think?

On 22/10/2013 03:17, F Murtz wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 21/10/2013 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.

http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wils..._reactors.html




Any one know what this reactor consists of IE how he built it, how it
works?

The one he built as a kid was a (non unity) fusion reactor - I think its
in a museum now.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

What about building a load of reactors as designed for submarines and use
those.

Brian


--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
MrWeld wrote in message ...
On 21/10/2013 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.

I'm loosely connected to some of the decommissioning projects for the
existing nuclear power stations. From what I've heard, there is an element
of over-staffing and make-work in at least some areas, which might push up
costs. I suspect it's easier to maintain a relaxed pace of work when
you're inside an secure facility where outside scrutiny is difficult, if
only for security reasons.

On 22/10/13 13:32, Brian Gaff wrote:
What about building a load of reactors as designed for submarines and use
those.


never get UK approval for non military use. Too expensive too. Easier
to start an entrely new design.

Brian




--
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.

An interesting article, but self-contradictory:

"The increase in total construction time, indicated in Fig. 2, from 7
years in 1971 to 12 years in 1980 roughly doubled the final cost of
plants. In addition, the EEDB, corrected for inflation, approximately
doubled during that time period. Thus, regulatory ratcheting, quite
aside from the effects of inflation, quadrupled the cost of a nuclear
power plant."

This seems specious to me - he's stating the same thing in two
different ways and adding them 'both' in. This is borne out by Fig 1,
where it is shown that rather than quadrupling, actually the cost just
over doubled during the period in question, and this was in line with
inflation:

"the consumer price index increased only by a factor of 2.2 between
1973 and 1983"

Next self-contradiction ...

"Ask the opponents of nuclear power and they will recite a succession
of horror stories, many of them true, about mistakes, inefficiency,
sloppiness, and ineptitude. They will create the impression that
people who build nuclear plants are a bunch of bungling incompetents.
The only thing they won't explain is how these same "bungling
incompetents" managed to build nuclear power plants so efficiently, so
rapidly, and so inexpensively in the early 1970s."

.... but ...

"Changing plans in the course of construction is a confusing process
that can easily lead to costly mistakes. The Diablo Canyon plant in
California was ready for operation when such a mistake was discovered,
necessitating many months of delay."

.... and ...

"There was a well-publicized situation on Long Island where a load of
pipe delivered from a manufacturer did not meet size specifications.
Instead of returning it and losing precious time, the pipe was
machined to specifications on site, at greatly added expense."

To me it seems facile to blame such mistakes upon the regulatory
environment. Further ...

"A major source of cost escalation in some plants was delays caused by
opposition from well-organized "intervenor" groups that took advantage
of hearings and legal strategies to delay construction."

.... again, this has nothing to do with the regulatory environment,
which was implied by placing it in a section entitled "Regulatory
Turbulence". (And, incidentally, similarly techniques are being
widely used by anti-AGW groups funded by such people as the Heartland
Institute, so TNP calling attention to this by linking to the wider
article is a case of pots and kettles).

"In summary, there is a long list of reasons why the costs of these
nuclear plants were higher than those estimated at the time the
projects were initiated. Nearly all of these reasons, other than
unexpectedly high-inflation rates, were closely linked to regulatory
ratcheting and the turbulence it created."

As above, the author fails to make a robust case for this. It is
ironic that the very next line is:

"But what about the "best experience" plants that avoided these
horrendous cost escalations."

Quite! What about them?! Thereafter he completely ignores them and
concentrates only on the worst experiences!

And the next paragraph begins:

"Perhaps the most important cause of cost variations was the human
factor."

And that, it seems to me, is the root of the problem - not so much
over regulation, as good old human incompetence. Not forgetting the
further regulation that resulted from Three Mile Island, you have to
remember also that the generation that built the first nuclear power
plants had just fought and won a very tough war, an experience that
moulds the characters of those lucky enough to survive, whereas the
generation that built the next wave was diluted by people of my own
generation bought up 'soft' in the post war years, without the
hardening experience of having to fight and think in long-term
logistical terms to ensure survival of the nation.

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:06:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

the real cost in in regulatory ratchetting.(government interference)

this is the most thorough analysis I have seen.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"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

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.