Submitted by spinlox t3_10h5abt in technology
urgjotonlkec t1_j56i3tt wrote
Doesn't really matter since they won't change the security requirements so these are DOA due to costs.
Youvebeeneloned t1_j56ucgg wrote
why should they change them???? In all honesty its not the reactor security requirements that need downgrading... its ALL OTHER infrastructure plant security that needs upgrading.
Our infrastructure security is ridiculously inept and open to attack.
urgjotonlkec t1_j56ulx6 wrote
Well, first off that's completely ridiculous. But the reason is because these reactors are much smaller so if they need the same security detail those costs will be far higher ler MWh. Nuclear is already too expensive, the last thing it needs is more costs.
DBDude t1_j5a1gse wrote
The reactors themselves are inaccessible, part of the design. Screw with anything up top, and they shut down on their own. But they don't plan on just one 50MW reactor per site.
Youvebeeneloned t1_j575gig wrote
The SIZE has nothing to do with why they need the detail dude....
urgjotonlkec t1_j576zx1 wrote
I never said it did. Just pointed out the costs will be prohibitive as a result.
Youvebeeneloned t1_j57fpwx wrote
No they wouldn't... the costs are not entirely what are preventing it now, and the DOE was specifically targeting these for approval to reduce the actual building costs which are the highest part of the costs.
>DOE is also supporting the development of smaller reactor designs, such as microreactors and small modular reactors, that will offer even more flexibility in size and power capacity to the customer. These factory-built systems are expected to dramatically reduce construction timelines and will make nuclear more affordable to build and operate.
urgjotonlkec t1_j57guno wrote
We're talking about operating costs here, not construction costs.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments