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