On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Stephen Loosley <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Small 'modular' nuclear reactors, or SMRs, are defined as reactor systems > that are comparatively small, compact and entirely factory built. As a > result, SMRs can be placed underground or underwater and moved for > decommissioning. They employ "passive" safety systems that do not require > human intervention – therefore fewer staff – and use a relatively small > amount of nuclear material." > > An attractive proposition? > > > Trying to work out if this is a fair interpretation: > They're also much cheaper than a Hinkley. One Rolls-Royce-led UK joint > venture is slated to cost £1.25bn. It's smaller, too. The plant would cover > a tenth of the area that a traditional nuclear power station does. > The big boys are also prowling. That £1.25bn Rolls-Royce consortium > includes Amec Foster Wheeler, Nuvia and Arup. Rolls-Royce has submitted > detailed designs to the government for SMRs capable of generating 220MW, > and that could be doubled up to 440MW. > So they mention 1.25 billion pounds and I think the article is saying that is for a 220MW plant. That's some expensive power, if so! Sam _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
