BullDog wrote:funduffer wrote:We may need a few.
A certain amount of Nuclear baseload would provide resilience and energy security to the grid. This could come from batteries, pumped hydro, interconnectors or nuclear. With very large amounts of wind and solar it may not be much but probably best to have some nuclear as an insurance.
It is a cost question whether these are 3GW behemoths like Sizewell, or smaller 0.5GW SMR's like Rolls-Royce's:
https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/why-rolls-royce-smr
It all comes down to whether you believe the lower costs of SMR's or not.
FD
I do not. There is not a linear or simple relationship between cost of a nuclear power plant and it's generating capacity. And that's no different to virtually every other type of process or energy facility. In particular, nuclear facilities bear overheads that are considerable virtually independent of size.
One example, there's little difference to the control, safeguarding and protection systems on a ~1.5gw steam turbine generator (as Hinckley C) compared to ~0.5gw steam turbine generator (as SMR proposal). And that's the conventional, non nuclear side of the facility. Cost savings? Virtually nil.
I think the main cost savings claimed for SMR's is that much of the kit can be produced in carefully controlled factory conditions rather than out in the open on-site. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen.
https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/press/f ... mr-factory
The three sites from which Rolls-Royce SMR will select the location of its first factory have been announced. The heavy pressure vessels (HPV) factory will produce components for a fleet of small modular reactors (SMR) designed and built here in the UK.
· The International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP), Sunderland and South Tyneside
· Teesworks, Teesside
· Gateway, Deeside
FD