# Economy-sized Nuclear Plants **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [August 14, 2009, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394 "2009-08-14T12:39:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/21 "2009-08-17T17:37:29Z")
I believe he mean to say “economical”. Yeah, economy-sized usually meant buy a lot more and get a significant savings. (“Family-sized”?) The Canadian nuclear industry tried to interest customers in the Slowpoke Reactor. This would be the size of a car, and mainly produce low-level heat. It could sit in the basement of a hi-rise apartment building, for example, and provide enough heat to keep the place comfortable in the winter. Maybe it could be used to generate electricity too. They idea is it would use very little pressure so not need the elaborate precautions of very hot high-presure steam geeneration plants. Of course the idea of you apartment’s superintendant fiddling with a nuclear reactor along with mopping the halls and changing light bulbs did not sound appealling. Even then, the idea of a large collection of highly radioactive material in every apartment building was not appealling for secuity reasons. To be fair, IIRC, the slowpoke was designed to be sealed and easy to run; the entire unit would be replaced (rather than refeuling with rods). ---
**Author:** ![Jerseyman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jerseyman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jerseyman)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/22 "2009-08-17T18:52:38Z")
What about the designs used on ships and submarines? I’ve heard of a design in fiction named after a US Admiral. The Admiral existed but I don’t know whether he ever had a reactor design. ---
**Author:** ![Jerseyman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jerseyman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jerseyman)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/23 "2009-08-17T19:28:29Z")
Rickover ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/24 "2009-08-17T20:36:20Z")
**md2000** said: > [@](#): > > I believe he mean to say “economical”. I was just coming in to say that I think Cecil wrote “economical sized” and Little Ed said, “That can’t be right.” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/25 "2009-08-17T22:03:24Z")
> [@Jerseyman](#): > > Rickover [Hyman Rickover](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover) was the Father of the Nuclear Navy. He was the driving force behind the push to put nuclear plants into various naval vessels, esp. submarines, and laid down the philosophical basis for the design and operation of his plants. I can’t say, at this time, that he designed the nuts and bolts of the various plants, but every story I heard of the man makes it clear he took a personal pride in his ships and boats, their plants. and the way they were operated. In part, because of the way he could play Congress, he often managed to get things done or authorized for his ships and boats that were outside the normal procedures for the rest of the fleet. After the loss of the [USS _Thresher_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)) he even spear-headed the effort to change the whole procurement and testing programs for anything aboard submarines. A very real man, and one who left a very large legacy behind him. But although submarine and surface ship plants are smaller than the latter plants favored for civilian nuclear power plants, they aren’t close to matching the output of the plants in the linked column. The plants aboard the [USS _Long Beach_ CGN 9](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Long_Beach_(CGN-9)), for example were an approximate match in power output for the former [Yankee Rowe plant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Rowe). The smallest military plants I know of were those I referenced above with the ANPP. And those are all on the larger end of the output levels that **Una** wrote about here. Some of the plants in the article represent a complete departure from much of the philosophy of the Navy’s nuclear program, which I believe was the same philosophy behind the ANPP. Rickover’s plants and designs were all based on having the primary safety for the operation of the plant being the constant operation by skilled, intelligent, trained and critically thinking operators following approved written procedures\*. I can’t swear that what I read or remember is accurate, but some of those plants are designed AIUI to operate without any kind of operator action. Different design philosophies bringing about different plants with different operational realities. BTW, **Una** - I think you are significantly understating the power output of the plants in a _Los Angeles_-class boat: They’re running on S6Gs using, these days, D2W cores. According to [this Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G_reactor) article, while the hard numbers on the S6Gs are still classified, the D2W cores in the various cruiser plants were rated for about 150 MW\*\*. - Rather famously, Rickover chewed out one of his captains who started setting up standing orders for plant conditions for his nuclear personnel, based on plant conditions. He stated that his plants were only going to be safe if the operators were allowed to follow their knowledge, not run by parroting instructions. One of the (many) reasons that Rickover was not popular with much of the ‘normal’ officer corps was that this verbal spanking was then disseminated through the whole of the nuclear power fleet. \*\* For any numbers that might be considered classified, still, all you get from me is what I can find in other public sources. ---
**Author:** ![crswa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90db22/32.png) [@crswa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crswa)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/26 "2009-08-17T23:02:46Z")
This caught my eye: > [@](#): > > Even smaller nuke designs include one by Hyperion, a sealed unit about the size of a hot tub that’s buried underground and generates 25,000 kilowatts for seven years. 25,000 kilowatts is 25 megawatts. A bit much for something only the size of a hot tub. Is that a typo in the article, or can one of these things really supply a small city? ---
**Author:** ![Rack-a-Bones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rack-a-Bones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rack-a-Bones)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/27 "2009-08-17T23:10:19Z")
I have a question that will probably sound dumb to you science/engineery types, but… I am thinking about the proposed reactor in remote Alaska and the “failsafes” mentioned in the article and I am wondering what powers the nuclear reactor itself? I mean before the reactor is “turned on” one would presume you need electricity to move things, pump water, see what you’re doing, etc. If the power functionality of the reactor failed, what would power the emergency systems? Would you just have some sort of switch to put it back on generator power? ---
**Author:** ![crswa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90db22/32.png) [@crswa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crswa)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/28 "2009-08-17T23:45:53Z")
> [@Rack-a-Bones](#): > > I have a question that will probably sound dumb to you science/engineery types, but… I am thinking about the proposed reactor in remote Alaska and the “failsafes” mentioned in the article and I am wondering what powers the nuclear reactor itself? I mean before the reactor is “turned on” one would presume you need electricity to move things, pump water, see what you’re doing, etc. If the power functionality of the reactor failed, what would power the emergency systems? Would you just have some sort of switch to put it back on generator power? Some reactors don’t really _need_ pumps (Though it’s a good idea to have them as a backup). Based on the description given in the article, I’m guessing that the 4S reactor uses gravity to move the coolant through the system. The heated coolant rises to the top where the heat is extracted and then falls back down to the reactor vessel. Regarding what happens during failure, there would almost certainly have to be small conventional generator and probably a battery backup included that would switch on automatically to power the system’s electronics and controls while they did whatever operations were necessary to keep the plant safe. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/29 "2009-08-18T17:31:35Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > **Una** - I think you are significantly understating the power output of the plants in a _Los Angeles_-class boat: They’re running on S6Gs using, these days, D2W cores. According to [this Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G_reactor) article, while the hard numbers on the S6Gs are still classified, the D2W cores in the various cruiser plants were rated for about 150 MW\*\*. I came to write the same thing, but I see you beat me to it, **OtakuLoki**. FWIW, the article rates the older D1G-2 core at 148 MW, and the newer D2W core at 165 MW. The prototype unit that I was assigned to for training was the now-decommissioned D1G plant, which had a D2W core loaded into it at the time. The only common element between this plant (which was designed for surface ships) and my submarine S6G plant was the D2W reactor core. (So when I sat down to start learning the specifics of my S6G plant when I first reported to my sub, it was the one system I was already familiar with.) Interestingly, for all the talk about plant size, the actual size of the fuel assembly in a D2W core was surprisingly small, deep inside the pressure vessel and shielding. The fuel assembly itself was not much bigger than a large refrigerator, and this would power a 6,900-ton submarine for 15+ years. > [@OtakuLoki](#): > > \*\* For any numbers that might be considered classified, still, all you get from me is what I can find in other public sources. A good practice, IMHO. For my own part, while I’ll also quote from public sources, I will not confirm whether or not the figures are accurate. P.S. All of the figures in this post may or may not be accurate. YMMV. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/30 "2009-08-18T17:40:45Z")
IIRC there was one of the people in Rickover’s program who was a bright up-and-coming captain in the US Navy, got his PhD in nuclear engineering, was slated to be in command of one of the early nuclear-powered subs (even came up to Canada to help in the clean-up of a Chalk River nuclear spill) … until Jimmy Carter decided to quit the navy and go back to peanut farming when his dad died and he had to run the farm… How many other presidents have had PhD’s? ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/31 "2009-08-18T18:11:08Z")
As far as I know, Carter didn’t get a PhD. Obama has a JD, but Woodrow Wilson is the only legit PhD to have occupied the White House. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/32 "2009-08-18T18:54:02Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > IIRC there was one of the people in Rickover’s program who was a bright up-and-coming captain in the US Navy, got his PhD in nuclear engineering, was slated to be in command of one of the early nuclear-powered subs (even came up to Canada to help in the clean-up of a Chalk River nuclear spill) … until Jimmy Carter decided to quit the navy and go back to peanut farming when his dad died and he had to run the farm… There are many inaccuracies in your post, to wit; [ul][li]Carter did not have a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering or anything else. According to wikipedia, he took a non-credit introductory course in nuclear power for a few months in 1953.[/li][li]Carter was not a Captain (O-6) in the U.S. Navy. He resigned his commission as a Lieutenant (O-3).[/li][li]Carter was not “slated to be in command of one of the early nuclear-powered subs.” He was training to be engineering officer aboard the USS Seawolf when he resigned his commission. (FWIW, lieutenants do not command submarines.)[/ul][/li] Had Carter remained in the Navy, he could have expected to command a submarine after promotion to Commander (O-5) and 15-16 years of active duty service in the Navy. Officers are not typically promoted to Captain until serving for 20+ years. (Carter only served for six years after graduating from the Naval Academy.) ---
**Author:** ![EvilTOJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EvilTOJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EvilTOJ)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/33 "2009-08-19T11:44:25Z")
I for one don’t want to wait until 2056 to drive my new Corvega, so let’s get those nuclear power engines smaller and cheaper post-haste. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/34 "2009-08-20T03:57:48Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **md2000** said: > I was just coming in to say that I think Cecil wrote “economical sized” and Little Ed said, “That can’t be right.” > 😉 Would it not be “economically sized” (i.e. an adverb), since sized is functioning as an adjective? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/35 "2009-08-20T18:51:51Z")
Nitpicky grammatical correctness. Who here would argue for that? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/36 "2009-08-21T01:14:40Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Nitpicky grammatical correctness. Who here would argue for that? 😉 It’s not even as much as that. It is perfectly correct and idiomatic in English to use a noun as an adjective (“house fly”, “stage fright”, “television program”). As it happens, in this case, “sized” and “size” are both acceptable, for different reasons. Indeed, “size” is probably the more reasonable, since “size” as a verb is pretty much limited to jargon these days. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/37 "2009-08-21T17:53:46Z")
Psst, John, we weren’t discussing “size” vs “sized”, but “economical” vs “economically”. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/38 "2009-08-21T21:22:32Z")
“Economically” would be quite wrong; it would imply that the act of sizing itself was economical – perhaps it was done with a hardware-store giveaway pine yardstick? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/39 "2009-08-21T23:25:54Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > “Economically” would be quite wrong; it would imply that the act of sizing itself was economical – perhaps it was done with a hardware-store giveaway pine yardstick? Well, I actually gave some possible reasons why smaller reactors could in theory be more economical that bigger ones. Smaller ones will generally less efficient in fuel usage, but fuel usage is a tiny part of overall nuclear reactor running costs. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394/40 "2009-08-24T18:53:42Z")
That would still be “economical sized reactors”, or perhaps “economical-sized reactors”, not “economically sized reactors”. Are the reactors economical in size, or is the sizing process economical (regardless of how big your reactor)? That is the distinction that **John W. Kennedy** proposes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economy-sized-nuclear-plants/506394.md?page=3)