|
Post by Roger Clifton on Apr 29, 2022 16:40:55 GMT 9.5
Nuscale comes up badly when comparing staff numbers with a coal-fired plant. According to US DoE's Supply Chain Deep Dive Assessment (p12), an equivalent coal plant requires 107 staff, whereas a 924 MW Voygr requires 270, of whom only 33 can be "centralized". Reading digital instruments in a control room can be done remotely – centralized – even if the connection is read-only. The operator with hands on levers need not be the most highly trained worker in the decision chain. In a mass rollout of such SMRs, the proportion of staff that can be centralized must be increased, if only to the point where the remaining on-site staffing rates are similar to the nearby coal plants they are replacing. The centralized staff would have to be monitoring many more SMRs than the 12 Voygrs in the comparison. Retraining takes up to several years, depending on the level of expertise, so the expansion of plant may well exceed the expansion in qualified staff. In particular, expertise would have to be centralized. (PS - link corrected, thanks to DBB)
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 30, 2022 2:28:05 GMT 9.5
Roger Clifton, the link you provided failed for me. With some searching I found www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Nuclear%20Energy%20Supply%20Chain%20Report%20-%20Final.pdffor which Table 3, document page 12, display page 22 for me, contains the comparison you mention. It is copied from the ScottMadden report linked in the reference at the bottom. I suppose the high personnel requirements stem from NRC requirements, although I don’t know why NuScale estimates that so many people are required. The only obvious redundancy is the large number of security guards. No, the reading of the instruments cannot be centralized as the transmission is considered to be an unacceptable security risk by NRC; I agree. Finally, what matters is the LCOE actually delivered as NuScale begins delivering the Voygr units.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on May 5, 2022 7:46:22 GMT 9.5
the reading of the instruments cannot be centralized as the transmission is considered to be an unacceptable security risk by NRC The NRC has a long history of obstruction. Was this edict issued in the days when it was run by an appointee from the coal industry? Since the alleged problem with read-only communications from the reactors is not specified, we can safely assume that it is hostile nonsense. Now, the world needs an exponential expansion in nuclear generation, but cannot supply trained operators at the same rate. One clear solution is that the reactors should be largely autonomous (run themselves), monitored from a distance by a decreasing proportion of expert operators.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 5, 2022 9:00:28 GMT 9.5
Roger Clifton, any form of communication off-site can be intercepted and distorted. Either wired or wireless. Ask any computer scientist (such as me). So the risk is considered too high. However, NuScale had earlier claimed that 2 on-site operators sufficed for a 12pak of Voygr units. I believe that is correct (and 2 are required solely because one might have a heart attack, the same reason commercial airplanes have a pilot and copilot). So why does the table list so many operators? Ten would suffice to provide two per shift. The same with security personnel. In both cases NRC claims this is for safety, I suppose. Maybe other countries will be more sensible, but I suppose that they will just blindly follow NRC’s lead. As for training, a 2 year associate’s degree program teaches all that any nuclear reactor operator of a pressurized water nuclear reactor needs to know. That’s half the time to build the power plant, so no problem fulfilling the requirements. Could even have short tours of duty at an existing facility to be sure that the new operators know what they are about.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on May 6, 2022 13:16:39 GMT 9.5
NuScale had earlier claimed that 2 on-site operators sufficed for a 12pak of Voygr units... As for training, a 2 year associate’s degree program teaches all that any nuclear reactor operator of a pressurized water nuclear reactor needs to know. That’s half the time to build the power plant, so no problem fulfilling the requirements. Your figures are most encouraging. The idea of having one man sitting at the controls, with only a second man to keep him awake, echoes of the urban myth of having a dog in the copilot seat to bite the pilot if he touches the controls. We seem to agree there – we need at least one human on site, with ready access to centralized advice. That the training period is shorter than the construction period is also reassuring. There is always a flood of fresh power engineering graduates, some of whom would do the extra one or two years of nuclear power training. However off-the-shelf installations may eventually come faster than one year between cash down and first routine production.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 7, 2022 5:32:30 GMT 9.5
Roger Clifton — To be precise, an associates’ degree is obtained by 2 years of study at a so-called junior college or community college after completion of high school. These are not power engineering graduates, who are always in short supply and in demand in the United States. The power companies have always been adamant that operating a power plant, of any kind, is a skill position not requiring a graduate of a four year engineering program. I agree, for what that is worth.
|
|
|
Post by huon on May 16, 2022 15:34:11 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jun 12, 2022 14:07:21 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jun 30, 2022 14:59:37 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jul 2, 2022 15:34:22 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jul 7, 2022 16:35:54 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 3, 2022 2:56:51 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Aug 6, 2022 16:01:06 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Aug 16, 2022 16:39:32 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Aug 21, 2022 16:54:09 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Aug 26, 2022 14:14:09 GMT 9.5
Reminiscences of Reactor Development at Argonne National Laboratory Tom Blees 13 Aug 2022 Newsletters: News Bits July 2022 Science Council for Global Initiatives thescgi.com/index.php/newsletters/latest-newsletter/archive/viewThis short essay by Tom Blees, author of "Prescription for the Planet", celebrates Natrium, TerraPower's sodium-cooled SMR to be built in Wyoming (previous post). One jaw-dropping section compares the volume and weight of fuel needed to run the Natrium reactor for one year with that required by a coal plant every day. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Sept 12, 2022 13:05:16 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Sept 16, 2022 13:36:21 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Sept 19, 2022 13:14:38 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Sept 22, 2022 13:46:31 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 10, 2022 14:00:51 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Nov 6, 2022 13:40:45 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Nov 17, 2022 4:27:07 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Nov 27, 2022 13:26:10 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Dec 6, 2022 13:05:46 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Dec 8, 2022 9:52:10 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Dec 16, 2022 14:53:00 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Dec 17, 2022 14:11:49 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Dec 21, 2022 13:55:41 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jan 15, 2023 9:51:27 GMT 9.5
|
|