Does anyone know what is the optimum size for a nuclear reactor powered electric generating power plant?

Question

Assuming it depend's on theses factors : the technical issues of building the plant, the security issues of locating and protecting the plant, the finance issues of construction,operation and safe end-of-life retirement costs, & the cost of electricity from carbon fuels like LNG, heavy fuel oils, or coal, can anyone rank these factors in decreasing order of economic magnitude? And where does the opportunity cost savings of GW remediation come into the economics ranking since it seems that nuclear power would help save entire ecosystems and all the species that would go extinct. I know it's a big picture Q, & since nobody is expected to A the Q, any contribution helping to answer this Q or formulate narrower more focused Q's would be appreciated.

I can ask the Q bec of my background, but obviously I don't know the A to my own Q. Useful Links also appreciated esp if you briefly state what to find there.

This an economics & science Q for the GW subcategory. Leave the politics out!

Answer 1

The bigger the better assuming that you have local demand for electricity in the grid which is strong enough.... meaning that this does not hold for Montana for example...

And also assuming that you have a sufficient cooling.

The reason to maximize the size is for the following reasons:

The containment which will turn to wastes is a square function while the inner volum of the reactor (place to produce heat) is a cubic function... so you decrease the share of waste/production.

Also large reactors have a more easy "fuel rods management" as the proportionnally, the fraction of them at the outskirt getting less slow neutron is lower.

Also a larger reactor has a lower cost for safety and maintenance per GWh produced.

On  a technical level it is prefearable also to have multiple reactors feeding multiple turbines in order to have the flexibility to run with only part of them for the maintenance without producing less than 2/3 of the nominal capacity.

Answer 2

There is no "optimal" size for a nuclear power plant. For one thing, power companies don't really care about global warming. They care about meeting government requirements and regulations. Anything more than that is fiscally irresponsive to shareholders. A bit of a generalization and a bit harsh, but it's really about the money.

The factors you listed depend on where the plant is, what it's purpose is, what regulations are in place, or going to be put in place.

There is an interesting design study here that might provide some insight.

http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/background...

Some other links that might help.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl...

http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/bus...

http://www.power-technology.com/projects...

Update:

I think you overestimate Yahoo Answers if you expect to get more than one or two thoughtful, intelligent answers, especially on a subject such as nuclear power and global warming.

Like it or not, GW (in the USA) is almost entirely a political issue. There is science that points in both directions backing either side of the debate and personally, I'm not convinced either way.

Like I mentioned before, GW has nothing to do with the optimal size of a power plant, and is not a direct player in the decision to build a power plant. Government regulations related to greenhouse gasses, toxic emissions, thermal pollution are among the regulatory issues that are considered in the economic decision to build a plant.

It would appear you are really asking one question, but wanting an answer to a different question. Your question is one about nuke plants, but you want an answer about how  GW play into the economics of producing power. Like I mentioned before, the government is the only entity that can cause a power producing company to consider the production of greenhouse gasses into the economic equation. In many countries, there are no such limitations, and this causes a lot of pollution.

You ask about the opportunity cost savings of GW remediation. If you believe that GW is man made, and that mankind has the responsibility to keep the earth in tact as is, then any amount of money spent doing it is worth it. Extinct is gone forever, priceless. However, if mankind could all get along and agree to do so, the global economy would collapse, peoples way of life would be destroyed, it would be the end of life as we know it because we don't have the technology or the means to support our power needs in a clean manner.

Nuclear power can help save ecosystems, but it will also destroy some. So will any other method of producing electricity. It's an unfortunate by product of our way of life. Certain things we do can minimize our impact, but can not erase it.