>

Search On This Site

Custom Search


It only takes a few moments to share an article, but the person on the other end who reads it might have his life changed forever
Subscribe via RSS



Contact Information: 
Submit: articles [ at ] investmentwatchblog [dot] com 
Advertising: ads [ at ] investmentwatchblog [dot] com 
General: admin [ at ] investmentwatchblog [dot] com

Future DOOM!!! U.S. Building New “Right-Sized Reactors”


Using Marketing and Language to sell More DOOM. Oh, small must equal safer. How quaint and folksy “niche markets” sounds when referring to a future reactor site. And, “right-sized reactors“, please they sound absolutely adorable. And this, “The facilities could also be used to create drinkable water supplies in those countries where such a resource is in short supply.” Oh Goodie!! Yay!!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2013/01/15/after-fukushima-u-s-seeks-to-advance-small-nuclear-reactors/

After Fukushima, U.S. Seeks to Advance Small Nuclear Reactors

Smaller reactors, though, have a place: They might not only serve niche markets but they could also replace at least some of those bigger and more centralized nuclear generation.

The right-sized reactors are expected to operate at high efficiencies and to have built-in advantages, ultimately giving those investments a respectable return. Such units, for example, generally come with a nuclear waste storage containment device. The facilities could also be used to create drinkable water supplies in those countries where such a resource is in short supply.

According to the Sandia National Laboratory, these smaller reactors would be factory built and mass-assembled, with potential production of 50 a year. They would all have the exact same design, allowing for easier licensing and deployment than large-scale facilities. Mass production will keep the costs down to between $250 million and $500 million per unit.

“This small reactor … could supply energy to remote areas and developing countries at lower costs and with a manufacturing turnaround period of two years as opposed to seven for its larger relatives,” says Tom Sanders, who has been working with Sandia. “It could also be a more practical means to implement nuclear base-load capacity comparable to natural gas-fired generating stations and with more manageable financial demands than a conventional power plant.”

29 Total Views 2 Views Today
Did you already share this? No? Share it now: