Electric Sonex

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes
were set up and run at a continuous power how much electricity
could the plant
provide.

That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply.
On a nuclear submarine the turbines that drive the generators are
small compared to the turbines that drive the prop.

Vaughn


From all I've heard, that is a passable analogy. I've also heard that
aircraft carriers are the ones that can really generate the electric
power--and even there, the electric power is probably small compared
to the porpeller drive power.

Peter

I guess I could have asked my question better. How's this?

How big of a generator (KW or MW per hour)could a nuclear reactor, such as
one used on the newest generation of carrier, power.

On Jul 27, 6:21 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Peter Dohm wrote:

...

I guess I could have asked my question better. How's this?

How big of a generator (KW or MW per hour)could a nuclear reactor, such as
one used on the newest generation of carrier, power.

I _think_ that the Gerald R Ford Class carriers are to be equipped
with
two (2) each 100 MWe reactors. The Perry, Ohio BWR reactor was
planned to be about 350 MWE, if I recall correctly.

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

--

FF

wrote:
On Jul 27, 6:21 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Peter Dohm wrote:

...

I guess I could have asked my question better. How's this?

How big of a generator (KW or MW per hour)could a nuclear reactor,
such as one used on the newest generation of carrier, power.

I _think_ that the Gerald R Ford Class carriers are to be equipped
with
two (2) each 100 MWe reactors. The Perry, Ohio BWR reactor was
planned to be about 350 MWE, if I recall correctly.

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

FF

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop designing
the damn things everytime one get's built they would be more affordable. I
have no problem with guarding the hell out of them. It would be cheaper than
the way we have done it in the pass.

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop designing
the damn things everytime one get's built they would be more affordable. I
have no problem with guarding the hell out of them. It would be cheaper than
the way we have done it in the pass.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Look up 'HTGR.'

Very modest little plants that don't even need an operator. I think
Gulf (General Atomics) holds the patents. We ran one for 15 years in
Colorado When the working fluid is helium there's nothing to become
irradiated. This 'packaged power' philosophy is probably the way the
Chinese will go.

-R.S.Hoover

wrote:
The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Look up 'HTGR.'

Very modest little plants that don't even need an operator. I think
Gulf (General Atomics) holds the patents. We ran one for 15 years in
Colorado When the working fluid is helium there's nothing to become
irradiated. This 'packaged power' philosophy is probably the way the
Chinese will go.

-R.S.Hoover

This looks like an excellent idea to me.

http://gt-mhr.ga.com/

On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:

....

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

...

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop designing
the damn things everytime one get's built they would be more affordable. I
have no problem with guarding the hell out of them. It would be cheaper than
the way we have done it in the pass.

Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
the US would require the elimination of competition between
the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.

As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
to economy. Major design differences for the export market
would be a problem.

--

FF

wrote:
On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:

...

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

...

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.

Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
the US would require the elimination of competition between
the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.

As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
to economy. Major design differences for the export market
would be a problem.

FF

I didn't say a thing about not having competion in the market. I don't care
if there are 2 or 200 companies makeing them. I just think it is wasteful
to have each plant designed on a white sheet of paper.

On Jul 31, 2:36 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:

...

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

...

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.

Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
the US would require the elimination of competition between
the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.

As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
to economy. Major design differences for the export market
would be a problem.

FF

I didn't say a thing about not having competion in the market. I don't care
if there are 2 or 200 companies makeing them. I just think it is wasteful
to have each plant designed on a white sheet of paper.

If they are, it is because the customer wants their next power plant
to be a certain way and the A/E's bid accordingly using as much
commonality with previous designs as possible.

Back when I was in the industry, a couple of utilities were having
more than one plant built to essentially the same design. I'm
pretty sure South Korea has several near-identical plants.

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 31, 2:36 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 27, 7:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
wrote:

...

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

...

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop
designing the damn things everytime one get's built they would be
more affordable. I have no problem with guarding the hell out of
them. It would be cheaper than the way we have done it in the pass.

Using a common design for all nuclear power reactors in
the US would require the elimination of competition between
the companies building them. So long as we have quasi-public
utilities, that won't happen. France has a Socialist economy.

As for proliferation issues, US designs are sold overseas,
to countries like South Korea. Egypt and at one time Iran.
The light water moderated low-enriched Uranium design that
is inherently proliferation-resistant is advantageous and not
really much of an impediment from an engineering standpoint,
to economy. Major design differences for the export market
would be a problem.

FF

I didn't say a thing about not having competion in the market. I don't
care
if there are 2 or 200 companies makeing them. I just think it is
wasteful
to have each plant designed on a white sheet of paper.

If they are, it is because the customer wants their next power plant
to be a certain way and the A/E's bid accordingly using as much
commonality with previous designs as possible.

Back when I was in the industry, a couple of utilities were having
more than one plant built to essentially the same design. I'm
pretty sure South Korea has several near-identical plants.

--

FF

I have heard rumors that there are three standard and approved designs.

However, it is not my occupational specialty and it has never been my
industry; so I really don't know.

Peter