|
Quoted: Using a 20 MW, at peak mind you so that'll probably average out to what 3-4 MW when averaged out over the day a plant in Kansas only ate up 144 acres. Getting just to 300 MW of peak (ignoring the 24/7 of a nuclear plant) would only consume just under 3 1/2 square miles of panels. Also, that project cost $37M, so extrapolating that to even a 300 MW peak would be $555M before a single battery and oversizing to charge them even gets started.  Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My rough math with Google states an equivalent solar system with battery back up is about 1/3 of that cost. Just food for thought. How many acres is that solar system going to be? Using a 20 MW, at peak mind you so that'll probably average out to what 3-4 MW when averaged out over the day a plant in Kansas only ate up 144 acres. Getting just to 300 MW of peak (ignoring the 24/7 of a nuclear plant) would only consume just under 3 1/2 square miles of panels. Also, that project cost $37M, so extrapolating that to even a 300 MW peak would be $555M before a single battery and oversizing to charge them even gets started. |
|
Quoted: Not to mention the cost of the real-estate Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My rough math with Google states an equivalent solar system with battery back up is about 1/3 of that cost. Just food for thought. How many acres is that solar system going to be? Using a 20 MW, at peak mind you so that'll probably average out to what 3-4 MW when averaged out over the day a plant in Kansas only ate up 144 acres. Getting just to 300 MW of peak (ignoring the 24/7 of a nuclear plant) would only consume just under 3 1/2 square miles of panels. Also, that project cost $37M, so extrapolating that to even a 300 MW peak would be $555M before a single battery and oversizing to charge them even gets started. And the opportunity cost. Is that also arable land that could better be used to grow food or raise livestock? The much better call is to set aside much less land for the same amount of base load. And load that can run all day, not just when the sun is shining. I get that’s what battery backups are for, but it’s still a losing proposition. Nuke is the way of the future. |
So reinventing what we already used in Greenland in the 1960's? Camp Century. Otherwise known as "Project Iceworm." The Best Documentary Ever - The Secret Base Greenland Base of Project Iceworm () Project Iceworm - From 1960 until 1963, the electric supply was provided by the world's first mobile/portable nuclear reactor, designated PM-2A and designed by Alco for the U.S. Army.  Water was supplied by Rod wells melting glaciers, and tested for germs such as the plague.
|
|
Quoted: Using a 20 MW, at peak mind you so that'll probably average out to what 3-4 MW when averaged out over the day a plant in Kansas only ate up 144 acres. Getting just to 300 MW of peak (ignoring the 24/7 of a nuclear plant) would only consume just under 3 1/2 square miles of panels. Also, that project cost $37M, so extrapolating that to even a 300 MW peak would be $555M before a single battery and oversizing to charge them even gets started. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My rough math with Google states an equivalent solar system with battery back up is about 1/3 of that cost. Just food for thought. How many acres is that solar system going to be? Using a 20 MW, at peak mind you so that'll probably average out to what 3-4 MW when averaged out over the day a plant in Kansas only ate up 144 acres. Getting just to 300 MW of peak (ignoring the 24/7 of a nuclear plant) would only consume just under 3 1/2 square miles of panels. Also, that project cost $37M, so extrapolating that to even a 300 MW peak would be $555M before a single battery and oversizing to charge them even gets started. Just an FYI MISO rates a solar farm at about 1/3 of its name plate, so basically you would need a 1000mw solar farm to get the same 300mw rating from MISO. |
|
Doesn't look like an SMR to me. I'll have to look at it closer. Just making AP1000 smaller doesn't = SMR. Let's see. AP1000 in USA = 30 billion and 10-15 years to build. So this one will be what? At least 5-10 billion? Consider me skeptical. Can they build them without going bankrupt again? |
|
Quoted: We will need this power source for our new AI gods. A god would require more energy than what a commercial nuclear fission reactor, or even several nuclear reactors would provide.  Matrioshka Brains: Star-Powered Computers |
|
Quoted: Not to mention the cost of the real-estate This post and the one he responded to are a good start to a solar-nuke comparison. Utility-scale battery storage has been yakked about for decades, but has yet to be implemented in anything other than demonstration-scale projects. Lots of grifter companies knocking around in this tech arena. And just wait until one of the Lion banks catches fire. The facility will burn for years. There is no putting it out. Sooner or later, you will see reactor-style containment buildings required for this scale of battery system, which will drive up costs to levels close to nuke plants. Now, consider availability. The TVA's Browns Ferry plant in AL was commissioned in 1974. It's typical capacity factor (ie, time generating power) is 96%, and its lifetime capacity factor over half a friggen century is 78%. Now compare that to solar, where a brand new installation is lucky to have a 20-25% capacity factor, and panels will have to be replaced due to deterioration, storm damage, etc probably 4-5x over 50 years (the tracking component design lives are 20 years) for a lifetime capacity factor of probably more like 10%, and you realize that you need ~10x the solar nameplate capacity to be equivalent to the actual available power of the nuke plant. So, 300 MW nuke = 3,000 MW solar. Now do your cost calculations, and as other posters have said, don't forget the real estate, opportunity costs for the land, and distance to transmit power. |
|
Quoted: I thought Westinghouse was down and out. This part of Westinghouse was bought by Cameco. They will offer one stop shopping for reactors and fuel. There is one public company in this space that has a licensed design and is actually building their first reactor, NuScale. Ticker SMR if you’re interested. The stock is trading just off it’s low. Short video of the reactor vessel in a giant forge.
|
|
It would take 110 large windmills to produce the same amount of power as one small 300 megawatt plant. The windmills would cost $440 million but only last 20 years (22 million a year). The nuke plant costs 1 billion but will last 80 years (12.5 million a year). Nuke plant has more consistent power output and is less of an eyesore on the environment. The compact nuke plant is more cost efficient but isn’t renewable so we will never see them go into production as long as liberals/rhinos have their way. |
|
Quoted: Hell of a first post. Welcome, fellow firearms enthusiast! Quoted: Quoted: Westinghouse did go down and out . . . scattered to the wind. BUT the only thing remaining is the Nuclear and Nuclear industrial supply division and I think its a 50/50 with Toshiba. Consumer electronics and appliances went to Siemens. Broadcasting with the old Group W TV and Radio stations bought CBS then became CBS. Power generation and services went to ABB. Elevators/Escelators went to Schindler. Transport went to ThermoKing. They spun off 7Up (yep they owned 7up!) Rail services (switching and devices and also subway and light rail equipment) and some of the industrial supply stuff were spun off into Wabtec (MotivePower) and WesCo International respectively (both Fortune 500 corporations in their own right now). But they are still Westinghouse on the Nuclear stuff. Interesting break down of how one of America's 20th century behemoths is now big chunks of ABB, Siemens, Schnidler, CBS, MotivePower and Wesco: Who Killed Westinghouse? Hell of a first post. Welcome, fellow firearms enthusiast! Thanks, appreciate the insight on these forums, learned a lot, but Westinghouse corporate history happens to be my wheelhouse 
|
|
Quoted: This has been in the works for some time. I remember the Let's Have A Think guy on YouTube doing a video about it several years ago. Way past due. Of course, the anti-nuke people will shut it down before it ever gets off the ground regardless of how many safety features are built-in. Still, it is the way of the future imho. Makes total sense, can be strategically placed near hard to reach locations, can be adapated for planetary colonization purposes, can be downsized for space travel eventually .... it's going to happen one way or another. The main part you got right is the anti nuclear whackos have a decade to fuck it over with permitting etc. |
|
Quoted: This part of Westinghouse was bought by Cameco. They will offer one stop shopping for reactors and fuel. There is one public company in this space that has a licensed design and is actually building their first reactor, NuScale. Ticker SMR if you’re interested. The stock is trading just off it’s low. Short video of the reactor vessel in a giant forge.
Had to look it up, not even 6 months ago, you are correct! (and they mention the Toshiba 50/50 where not even Westinghouse could support the business anymore). Other than naming rights for consumer goods that are manufactured by other non-related companies, the nuclear business was the last remaining "independent" division of what us 20th century kids knew of the "Westinghouse" media/appliances/broadcasting/rail/industrial giant. |
|
Quoted: Thread title is misleading. They didn't unveil a reactor. Get back to me when they've built one. I have 0 doubt it can be built. It's all the other issues that have to be solved. Mostly people being idiots issues. Anyone got a link to the abandoned ed soviet RTG thread we did a week ago? |
|
Quoted: I have 0 doubt it can be built. It's all the other issues that have to be solved. Mostly people being idiots issues. Anyone got a link to the abandoned ed soviet RTG thread we did a week ago? Your wish is my lunch. |
|
Quoted: $3 Billion after cost and schedule over runs. One key material used in nuclear facility construction was banned earlier this year, and surely more are to come in the quest to eliminate forever materials and microplastics. |
|
Quoted: Fusion is (relatively) easy. Controlled Fusion not so much. Quoted: Quoted: 58 years ago, I knew a Nuclear engineer who worked for Westinghouse. They were exploring tokamak as a viable method of producing and controlling nuclear fusion. They're still working on that. Fusion is (relatively) easy. Controlled Fusion not so much. Controlled fusion is pretty easy. Controlled fusion in a way that you can recover useful energy from the process in a continuous fashion is another situation entirely. Quoted: I suspect at some point in the next several years the marching orders will be given to convince the NPCs that nuclear power is in fact safe. No way they get their electric cars otherwise. They dont' want electric cars. They want to eliminate private transportation for the masses. Mandating an impossible scheme is the method to achieve that. |
|
Quoted: My rough math with Google states an equivalent solar system with battery back up is about 1/3 of that cost. Just food for thought. 300MW = 300,000,000 Watts. Nuke plant can put that out 24 hours a day year round for at least 18 months before refueling. During winter the plant operates more efficiently than summer where as solar is massively reduced. 300,000,000 Watts x .90 $/watt = $270,000,000 Solar output is only decent for about 6 hours per day a little more or less depending on location and time of year. Also, the sun doesn't shine every day. So you need 4 to 5 times that many solar panels to provide enough energy to charge batteries and maintain 300MW output. You also have to account for losses in charging batteries and cloudy days. $270,000,000 x 5 = $1,350,000,000 Really, that's probably not enough. Probably need way more than that. Still haven't added storage costs. |
|
Ge and Hitachi have one as well. I'm not sure if its vaporware though dates for the 1at install seem to be hard to nail down. https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-hitachi-signs-contract-for-the-first-north-american-small-modular-reactor |
|
Quoted: Went to Millar first. We used to joke that Westinghouse got in the elevator business when someone at the washing machine factory asked what they could do with all of the extra washing machine parts. Interested in your recollections on this (love corporate histories). Westinghouse I had learned bought Millar sometime in the late 60s then when it sold out the entire package to Schindler, the new division kept the Millar branding for some products/services. Love the joke, I am going to remember that one, that is fun!
|
|
Quoted: Ge and Hitachi have one as well. I'm not sure if its vaporware though dates for the 1at install seem to be hard to nail down. https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-hitachi-signs-contract-for-the-first-north-american-small-modular-reactor They're all vaporware for now, including NuScale's. Hopefully one or more become economically viable in the coming years, but right now, I see no reason anyone would choose these over gas turbines (economically). |
|
Quoted: Seems like a great direction to go. Smaller and way cheaper and faster to build. story Company expects to deliver 300-megawatt plants for $1 billion 'We are confident this will sail through' licensing process Westinghouse Electric Co., the US nuclear-technology giant, is developing a compact version of its flagship power plant, a move aimed at making its designs more competitive in markets that don't need large, conventional reactors. The company unveiled plans on Thursday for a small modular reactor it calls the AP300, which is based on technology from its 1.1-gigawatt AP1000 reactor. Westinghouse expects the new design will get federal approval in 2027, and the first unit may start delivering power to the grid in about 2033. The compact plant would have a generating capacity of 300 megawatts, making it a suitable replacement for coal plants that often generate a similar amount of power. https://info.westinghousenuclear.com/hs-fs/hubfs/AP300-Webpage-Themes.jpg?width=1125&height=559&name=AP300-Webpage-Themes.jpg As someone who works with the coal and oil industry I applaud this. We should have had these 20 years ago, but better late than never. |
|
Despite a steep hike in the project cost estimate for the proposed 462-MWe Carbon-Free Power Project (CFPP), 26 of 27 public power entities have voted to continue development of the first-of-its-kind six-module NuScale Power VOYGR-6 small modular nuclear (SMR) plant. If the NRC approves the COLA, construction of the project could begin in 2026, with the first VOYGR-6 module scheduled to be in service by December 2029. All modules are slated to be in service by November 2030. The “overwhelming approval” by CFPP project participants during the February off-ramp period to continue with the project is especially notable because NuScale and Fluor’s Class 3 project cost estimate failed to reach its levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) price target of $58/MWh (in 2020 dollars). In December 2022, meanwhile, as required by its Development Cost Reimbursement Agreement (DCRA) with CFPP, NuScale unveiled the results of an economic competitiveness test (ECT) to determine project LCOE. Factoring in findings from the Class 3 estimates, the DOE cost-sharing payments, estimated IRA benefits, and the owner’s cost estimate, NuScale projected LCOE had soared to $89/MWh (in July 2022 dollars). Is Westinghouse less expensive? |
|
Quoted: They're all vaporware for now, including NuScale's. Hopefully one or more become economically viable in the coming years, but right now, I see no reason anyone would choose these over gas turbines (economically). Quoted: Quoted: Ge and Hitachi have one as well. I'm not sure if its vaporware though dates for the 1at install seem to be hard to nail down. https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-hitachi-signs-contract-for-the-first-north-american-small-modular-reactor They're all vaporware for now, including NuScale's. Hopefully one or more become economically viable in the coming years, but right now, I see no reason anyone would choose these over gas turbines (economically). The only reason onset them as economically viable is when the gov fines you into oblivion for any emissions more than the night maintenance guy farting. 
|
|
Quoted: They're all vaporware for now, including NuScale's. Hopefully one or more become economically viable in the coming years, but right now, I see no reason anyone would choose these over gas turbines (economically). NuScale is actually building their first reactor right now. As in forging the reactor vessel. Hardly vapor ware. |
|
Quoted: Is Westinghouse less expensive? Quoted: Despite a steep hike in the project cost estimate for the proposed 462-MWe Carbon-Free Power Project (CFPP), 26 of 27 public power entities have voted to continue development of the first-of-its-kind six-module NuScale Power VOYGR-6 small modular nuclear (SMR) plant. If the NRC approves the COLA, construction of the project could begin in 2026, with the first VOYGR-6 module scheduled to be in service by December 2029. All modules are slated to be in service by November 2030. The “overwhelming approval” by CFPP project participants during the February off-ramp period to continue with the project is especially notable because NuScale and Fluor’s Class 3 project cost estimate failed to reach its levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) price target of $58/MWh (in 2020 dollars). In December 2022, meanwhile, as required by its Development Cost Reimbursement Agreement (DCRA) with CFPP, NuScale unveiled the results of an economic competitiveness test (ECT) to determine project LCOE. Factoring in findings from the Class 3 estimates, the DOE cost-sharing payments, estimated IRA benefits, and the owner’s cost estimate, NuScale projected LCOE had soared to $89/MWh (in July 2022 dollars). Is Westinghouse less expensive? https://www.cfppllc.com/file/cd705a08-4d20-4465-8d58-0f73f65f7c7e Participants were provided an opportunity to withdraw from the project, or revise subscription levels, after costs increased above the target price due to high inflation and interest rate increases. Of the 27 participants in the project, 26 voted to continue, with one participant reducing its subscription level and one participant substantially increasing its subscription in the project. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Old reactors won't sell well. Give me the new stuff - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Molten_Salt_Reactor.svg/1200px-Molten_Salt_Reactor.svg.png You’re going to be in for some major headaches.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHT-w2x6dDgstep by step  
|
|
Quoted: Seems like a great direction to go. Smaller and way cheaper and faster to build. story Company expects to deliver 300-megawatt plants for $1 billion 'We are confident this will sail through' licensing process Westinghouse Electric Co., the US nuclear-technology giant, is developing a compact version of its flagship power plant, a move aimed at making its designs more competitive in markets that don't need large, conventional reactors. The company unveiled plans on Thursday for a small modular reactor it calls the AP300, which is based on technology from its 1.1-gigawatt AP1000 reactor. Westinghouse expects the new design will get federal approval in 2027, and the first unit may start delivering power to the grid in about 2033. The compact plant would have a generating capacity of 300 megawatts, making it a suitable replacement for coal plants that often generate a similar amount of power. https://info.westinghousenuclear.com/hs-fs/hubfs/AP300-Webpage-Themes.jpg?width=1125&height=559&name=AP300-Webpage-Themes.jpg Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |