09V/09VI (095/096) Nuclear Submarine Thread

[supersnoop]

I would not say it is almost dead. Nuclear phaseout in Europe is by choice. Many of their plants are in good condition but poltics decided their fate.
Nearly all of the plants in the US have their license extended to 60 years and more than a dozen have extended to 80 years and so as things stand, the nuclear industry in the US will stretch to 2050+ without problem. The US DOE is spending quite a bit of money to revitablize the industry in improvign fuel design and new reactor concepts. Nuclear is one of the cheapest energy source and the lack of new construction is due to high startup cost and lack of electricity demand increase. We will see if anything happens with small modular reactors if electricity demand picks up. There are two AP1000 reactors being built at the Vogtle site (one is already operating).
A key driving force for China to build nuclear may be environmental to reduce pollution and global warming potential. More than 60% of electricity generated in China comes from coal, relative to ~20% in the US.

US DOE will try, but the problem with the US nuclear power industry is that it is often privatized down to the utility level. If you look at the US nuclear power plants, they are all tiny 1 - 2 reactor plants, no scale at all. The operators are often private equity companies that have no interest in new builds. The largest nuclear power stations in North America are actually all in Ontario, Canada. They were built while under government ownership, although the largest is now under the ownership of pension funds.

The massive cost and more powerful output of these new reactors require government funding and at the very least a regional electrical power generation plan (to ensure all the electricity is sold). One of the problems with deindustrialization and greater efficiency is that power demands have decreased. Combined with the inevitable cost overruns of any large project, the unsubsidized cost of electricity from new build power plants (even non-nuclear) is an issue.

 

[hkky]

US DOE will try, but the problem with the US nuclear power industry is that it is often privatized down to the utility level. If you look at the US nuclear power plants, they are all tiny 1 - 2 reactor plants, no scale at all. The operators are often private equity companies that have no interest in new builds. The largest nuclear power stations in North America are actually all in Ontario, Canada. They were built while under government ownership, although the largest is now under the ownership of pension funds.

The massive cost and more powerful output of these new reactors require government funding and at the very least a regional electrical power generation plan (to ensure all the electricity is sold). One of the problems with deindustrialization and greater efficiency is that power demands have decreased. Combined with the inevitable cost overruns of any large project, the unsubsidized cost of electricity from new build power plants (even non-nuclear) is an issue.

What you described is the economic situation and not technological. it is true the overhead running cost is lower for multiple units sites and those single unit sites have higher permanent shutdown probability. I am not sure how much difference "scale" makes since plants are not built in an assembly line, perhaps this could be true for modular reactor. There could be some saving on major componets if you order multiple at a time but most of the work is done on site. A utility can have multiple sites and most of the running overhead costs can be shared.

Overall, in deregulated markets, nuclear currently is very competitive to any other energy source in the US. It is the lack of power demand increase and large startup cost holding back nulcear in the US. A few years ago low natural gas prices held back the industry. A plan that guarantee nuclear base load would be ideal and this may be a problem in the future as some plants are asked to load-follow. This problem is not unique to the US, some nuclear power plants in China are also asked to load-follow, imagine that with 60% electric power come from coal!!!. The situation in China is not as coordinated as you think. Somebody mentioned China purchased all types of reactors and should have learned from them, well....they are not necessarily talking to eactother.

There are always large uncertainties in construction cost of the first of a kind and the US DOE offered financial support to the first few units. In many cases the large cost uncertainty is not direct cost, but delays due to other reasons, see Seabrook and VC Summer as examples, that may be unique to Western society.

 

[supersnoop]

What you described is the economic situation and not technological. it is true the overhead running cost is lower for multiple units sites and those single unit sites have higher permanent shutdown probability. I am not sure how much difference "scale" makes since plants are not built in an assembly line, perhaps this could be true for modular reactor. There could be some saving on major componets if you order multiple at a time but most of the work is done on site. A utility can have multiple sites and most of the running overhead costs can be shared.

Well, the industry health does depend on both technology and economics. I like to say that Engineering department can never operate independently of Accounting.

Scale is kind of important. I've seen this first hand. Because the nuclear industry has basically been on life support for 40 years, a lot of the old suppliers are gone. It is a nightmare to refurbish/replace the electronics of these plants as they are long obsolete. It is not an assembly line, but as you mention yourself, there are components. Who is still making nuclear approved valves, etc.? Without a strong commitment to nuclear power, these components will be treated and priced as one-off things and the overhead adds up a lot.

I think we are in agreement over the challenges the industry is facing. I don't know too much about the Chinese experience, but I think the big issue is that many power plants are "young", they aren't shutting down any time soon (especially the nuclear ones).

I suggest any further discussion would belong in the Chinese technology thread as this is not directly related to the SS(B)N.

 

[John Doe]

Did this site die? No new posts in over a month.

 

[BoraTas]

Did this site die? No new posts in over a month.

Well, no new info on the subs discussed in this thread. So no posts.

 

[John Doe]

OK. Thought there might have been an issue with my ability to connect. Guess not. I’ll keep checking in.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

From a research paper conducted on a next-gen SLBM (presumably JL-3?). The SLBM is said to be capable of launching beneath ice layers. Posted by @伏尔戈星图 on Weibo.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

A tender notice for X-type stabilizer wing (I believe this refers to the tail section & rudders) installation tooling, to be handed to Bohai Shipyard at Huludao upon completion date. Could be related to the 095 SS(G)N and/or 096 SSBN.

Posted by @賴宏劼 on Facebook.

 

[roll]

OK. Thought there might have been an issue with my ability to connect. Guess not. I’ll keep checking in.

Whether it's 095 or 096, their level of confidentiality is so high that we have no way of knowing almost any relevant information - and even we have no way of knowing whether 095 has been launched. At least I think this thread will remain unattended for a long time in the future.

 

[charles18]

I would not say it is almost dead. Nuclear phaseout in Europe is by choice.

In 1969 the Americans built a space rocket and sent men to the moon. They did this continuously every year, for 4 times until they got tired and stopped. I guess you can say stopping the program was by choice.
But...
As time went by all the engineers, machinists, and technicians that made super heavy-lift rocket technology possible eventually retired and died without passing on their knowledge base to the next generation. This is how a society losses a technology. History gives us many examples of this.
Getting back to nuclear power if the trend continues, 20 years from now "the West" will simply lose the capacity to build civilian nuclear power plants. Once this happens then it will No longer be by choice.

Secondly...

Currently all new nuclear reactor construction must be at least based on 3rd generation technology. 2nd generation does not meet standard and thus cannot be built. Using this logic, 20 years from now all new construction must be at least based on 4th generation technology. China is the only country that has a 4th generation nuclear reactor currently in operation, the HTR-PM reactor. Therefore they have the lead.