New, small, self-contained nuclear plants

[Johannes Tass]

These new, small proposed, pre-packaged reactors may be the answer to some of today's energy needs. About 25 MWe, good for 10 years, self-contained, pre-fabbed, underground,...

http://www.gen4energy.com/technology/

This company may be on to something, here!

[dhimmer]

Why would something like this be preferable to a 100 MW or 200 MW unit, i.e., the more mainstream SMRs proposed?

Also, I saw something about them pulling out from the DOE SMR program, or something like that. Any idea why?

[Johannes Tass]

Why would something like this be preferable to a 100 MW or 200 MW unit, i.e., the more mainstream SMRs proposed?

There are cases where the higher rated system is not needed. But output power is only ONE consideration, when deciding what to get. The beauty of this appears to be that it is an all-inclusive unit that is delivered to the site, placed in an underground "silo", sort-of-speak, and runs without refueling for 10 years. Then, the used up unit is taken away and a new one is dropped in, for another 10 years. With a unit like that being able to supply the electrical needs of about 70,000 households, just imagine the flexibility municipalities would have, instead of having to rely from power off the grid, power that comes may be from 100s of miles away!

One of the most interesting applications of this plant would be in powering installations that need lots of concentrated power, or need secure power, etc. like the google datacenter that was all over the news the past couple of days. Installations like those are power hungry and need to be reliable, and cheap to operate, so this looks like a good candidate.

Also, I saw something about them pulling out from the DOE SMR program, or something like that. Any idea why?

Hmm, not sure about his one. But, from what I've read, they believe that they can get their design completed and approved faster, so they didn't want to be lumped in together with the rest of the SMRs.

[HowardE]

The big question is (and always will be), how much safer, if any, these systems are compared to (a) current nukes, (b) the new AP1000 designs and (c) other (larger) proposed SMRs.

And, with today's natural gas prices being so low and reserves being so high, will it make sense financially?

[Johannes Tass]

The big question is (and always will be), how much safer, if any, these systems are compared to (a) current nukes, (b) the new AP1000 designs and (c) other (larger) proposed SMRs.

(a) No comparison, they use passive safer systems, (b) much safer than even the AP1000 because of the size and the all-in-one-module design, (c) even safer than the larger SMRs.

And, with today's natural gas prices being so low and reserves being so high, will it make sense financially?

Yes, they would be competitive, with a 10-year continuous running with no need to refuel and very short module-replacement time each 10 years.