But GE and Westinghouse were not the only ones going for larger reactors, right? Nobody continues to build those smaller reactors.
I agree with you that there is the possibility for SMRs to positively impact their cost by shedding systems. But the impact has to offset the economy of scale advantage.
But GE and Westinghouse were not the only ones going for larger reactors, right? Nobody continues to build those smaller reactors.
I agree with you that there is the possibility for SMRs to positively impact their cost by shedding systems. But the impact has to offset the economy of scale advantage.
In the US, B&W and Combustion Engineering joined into the business, but like GE and Westinghouse, their primary experience was in producing very large components for fossil fuel fired steam plants.
Manufacturers in other countries were building lower powered reactors, often using natural uranium fuels, but they faced competition from subtlety subsidized US suppliers that had access, for example, to low-priced enriched fuel that could reduce required core sizes.
US manufacturers also had access to superior forging equipment that enabled large pressure vessels. That capability stemmed from defense factories, mainly associated with large steam powered ships (like super carriers). Again, the cost of developing that infrastructure was borne by the defense sector.
My analysis – conducted over a 30 year period – tells me that there are as many "diseconomies of scale" as there are economies. Both are very real and lead to complex optimization challenges where the right answer depends on a number of variables.
But it's worth thinking about the fact that you can produce 1000 MWe using 5 200 MWe reactors, but you cannot economically produce 200 MWe using one 1000 MWe reactor operating at 20% power.
But GE and Westinghouse were not the only ones going for larger reactors, right? Nobody continues to build those smaller reactors.
I agree with you that there is the possibility for SMRs to positively impact their cost by shedding systems. But the impact has to offset the economy of scale advantage.
In the US, B&W and Combustion Engineering joined into the business, but like GE and Westinghouse, their primary experience was in producing very large components for fossil fuel fired steam plants.
Manufacturers in other countries were building lower powered reactors, often using natural uranium fuels, but they faced competition from subtlety subsidized US suppliers that had access, for example, to low-priced enriched fuel that could reduce required core sizes.
US manufacturers also had access to superior forging equipment that enabled large pressure vessels. That capability stemmed from defense factories, mainly associated with large steam powered ships (like super carriers). Again, the cost of developing that infrastructure was borne by the defense sector.
My analysis – conducted over a 30 year period – tells me that there are as many "diseconomies of scale" as there are economies. Both are very real and lead to complex optimization challenges where the right answer depends on a number of variables.
But it's worth thinking about the fact that you can produce 1000 MWe using 5 200 MWe reactors, but you cannot economically produce 200 MWe using one 1000 MWe reactor operating at 20% power.