I’m glad that the XE-100 and Natrium reactors are being built but we need to get several years of operational experience before committing to build a lot more of them.
If we want to do something more than twiddle our thumbs in the next decade then the only sensible approach is to deploy more copies of the latest PWR (or BWR) designs - like the APR1400 or the AP1000. If we were smart, we’d ally ourselves with a few other states and put in an order for a dozen plants, agreeing to spread the cost among all participants.
Educated guesses on construction time in the United States should be based on the experiences of other building processes in the United States. I'd think variations from the actual experience of building would need to be explained.
Most recent experience: Vogtle 4. Looking at an already established site with previous construction and operation, an established vendor and an experienced operator -- and the build process took a bit over 11 years from when a license was issued until operation.
Combined License Issued: 02/10/2012
Date of 10 CFR 52.103(g) Finding: 07/28/2023
What part of the processes do you expect would be substantially shorter for (presumably) a new operator, a vendor with little experience in the United States, a new site, and in a state that hasn't had a nuclear plant operating since 1989?
4. The Natrium cost doesn't seem accurate. The FOAK plant is being built as a single unit for $4 billion. Why would the next multi-unit plant cost more?
5. I don't understand how a Natrium plant, with 80% less concrete than other SMRs, would take longer to build than an AP1000 or APR1400.
I’m glad that the XE-100 and Natrium reactors are being built but we need to get several years of operational experience before committing to build a lot more of them.
If we want to do something more than twiddle our thumbs in the next decade then the only sensible approach is to deploy more copies of the latest PWR (or BWR) designs - like the APR1400 or the AP1000. If we were smart, we’d ally ourselves with a few other states and put in an order for a dozen plants, agreeing to spread the cost among all participants.
Educated guesses on construction time in the United States should be based on the experiences of other building processes in the United States. I'd think variations from the actual experience of building would need to be explained.
Most recent experience: Vogtle 4. Looking at an already established site with previous construction and operation, an established vendor and an experienced operator -- and the build process took a bit over 11 years from when a license was issued until operation.
Combined License Issued: 02/10/2012
Date of 10 CFR 52.103(g) Finding: 07/28/2023
What part of the processes do you expect would be substantially shorter for (presumably) a new operator, a vendor with little experience in the United States, a new site, and in a state that hasn't had a nuclear plant operating since 1989?
By learning from Vogtle 4 and hiring the competent people who worked on that project. And to plan carefully before starting building.
1. Xe-100 project for Dow Chemical in Texas has applied for a construction permit. https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-working-with/applicant-projects/long-mott.html
2. The Xe-100 is scalable to 12 reactors, which Grant Country PUD is Washington State is evaluating. https://www.yoursourceone.com/columbia_basin/grant-pud-secures-land-in-marlin-for-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-and-renewable-energy-park/article_ff4b8f2c-b34a-11ef-82e4-4f0eaf2eea33.html
3. I don't believe the costs listed are accurate. The 2024 MIT study showed an AP1000 should cost $10 to $12 billion per unit. https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANES.pdf
4. The Natrium cost doesn't seem accurate. The FOAK plant is being built as a single unit for $4 billion. Why would the next multi-unit plant cost more?
5. I don't understand how a Natrium plant, with 80% less concrete than other SMRs, would take longer to build than an AP1000 or APR1400.