Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,692 posts)
4. You said "outside of remote locations"
Thu May 31, 2012, 11:32 AM
May 2012

Specifically those that currently use diesel generators.

100-300 MWs is far too large for that. For comparison, the largest diesel generator produced by the largest manufacturer (Cat) is about 17.5 MWs. If you think that's their target market, you've misunderstood their size. They are intended to replace full-scale fossil-fuel units.

and specified ancillary costs that are not present for many other generating sources

You specificed "fuel" and "security". Fuel costs are obviously far lower than gas/coal/oil/diesel, so that's not an issue. It's a tiny percentage of the lifetime cost of reactors (and many SMRs are deisigned for long refeuling intervals - or none at all). Security costs are similarly a small portion of the overall expense.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»"We’re looking at a ...»Reply #4