Portable nuclear plants

  • Thread starter jal
  • Start date

mheslep

Gold Member
254
728
Not much detail on the design there. I'm especially curious, as before, how the system is cooled externally, and what is the nature of the connection to an steam turbine and generator.

Also:
the reactor will be about 15 meters tall by 3 meters wide and will not weigh more than 500 tons—small and lightweight enough to be transported on a ship and by a heavy-haul transport truck.
A 500 ton truck load? Surely they mean rail only?
 
Last edited:
1,523
526
A 500 ton truck load? Surely they mean rail only?
I watched Ansaldo's heavy haul contractors bring the replacement steam generators into Palo Verde - each SG is about 1.5 million pounds dry. Calling those rigs "trucks" is kind of a stretch, but they are surely road-going, not railroad. From Italy by sea to Mexico then over roads to the plant, west of Phoenix.

See also "schnaebel car"
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
728
I watched Ansaldo's heavy haul contractors bring the replacement steam generators into Palo Verde - each SG is about 1.5 million pounds dry. Calling those rigs "trucks" is kind of a stretch, but they are surely road-going, not railroad. From Italy by sea to Mexico then over roads to the plant, west of Phoenix....
Well that would do it.

I've been by Palo Verde a few times. Any idea if it's 4GW is the largest nuclear capacity in the world? Also, what does P.V. use for a water source outside Phoenix? I saw those large open shallow pools, couldn't make sense of them.
 
1,523
526
Any idea if it's 4GW is the largest nuclear capacity in the world?
I'm pretty sure it's the highest capacity site in the US, but it's not the highest "in the world." The Ulchin and Yeonggwang sites in South Korea each have six reactors, giving each site close to 6,000 MWe total capacity. People talk about France's nuclear program, but most don't seem to realize what the Koreans have done. Also, they have the capability to fabricate the heavy pressure vessels & steam generators (eg, at Doosan).

Also, what does P.V. use for a water source outside Phoenix? I saw those large open shallow pools, couldn't make sense of them.
The ultimate heat sink (cools the condensers) is forced-draft cooling towers that use Phoenix's waste water (yes, treated sewage). The large pools you saw from the road are holding pools for the water from Phoenix. It comes all the way out to the site in a long pipeline. The safety related heat sink (for cooling the reactor) is a separate system of 'spray ponds.'
 
148
0
I happened to come across an article recently discussing the SNAP 10A, which is the only fission reactor that the United States ever launched in space.

http://www.etec.energy.gov/History/Major-Operations/SNAP-Overview.html" [Broken]

What grabbed me was a picture of the reactor core:

http://www.etec.energy.gov/History/Major-Operations/MajorOpsImages/S8DR_Core_assembly_31Jul64THUMB.jpg [Broken]

The reactor only put out 500 watts, but it was severely limited since it had to dissipate all the heat by radiation. I suspect an air cooled design with the same core could have put out lot more power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
TEPCO’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear station, which consists of seven (7) large BWRs, is the largest nuclear power generation facility in the world, licensed for 8,200 MWe (when all 7 are up and running).
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
728
TEPCO’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear station, which consists of seven (7) large BWRs, is the largest nuclear power generation facility in the world, licensed for 8,200 MWe (when all 7 are up and running).
Thanks Astronuc. That's a lot of power in one place. I note http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/nuclear_power_news/archive/2009/05/08/xtepco.aspx" [Broken]:
All seven nuclear generators at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant have been shut since a magnitude 6.8 quake hit the region in July 16, 2007. The least damaged No.7 unit would be the first of the seven to be restarted.
No doubt they are back up and running now, but to lose 8,200 MWe instantly from their grid like that must have been difficult. The threat of such a loss argues heavily against mammoth installations in my view, and in favor of smaller distributed power sources like the ones mentioned in this thread, especially for seismically active countries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: Portable nuclear plants

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
750
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
14K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
5K
Top