This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

10,139 Members


Nuclear Energy Plant Designed, Constructed, Tested in Less Than Two Years

Under current rules and assumptions, anyone who claims that they can design and build a power-producing nuclear reactor in less than 10-15 years is considered to be naive or hopelessly unrealistic. However, there is no reason to believe that everyone with the technical capacity for completing the task will follow the same rules. Even in the United States, there was a time in which nuclear technology development moved much more quickly.

One of my favorite documented examples is the US Army’s reactor project designated as PM-2A, which was assigned the task of providing electricity and heat to a remote base in Greenland. The design contract was awarded on January 23, 1959. The power plant started supplying heat and electricity to the base, Camp Century, on November 12, 1960, only 22 months later. Here are extracts from an Army-produced status report video that describes several stages of the project, including site preparation, delivering, assembling and starting up the reactor power plant.

Knowing what is technically possible, why would anyone assume that all potential economic competitors would agree to adhere to the same constricting rules that the “powers that be” have devised here in the US?

If the game is rigged to be a no-win situation, the most productive response is to change the rules. For some odd reason, far too many people consider that course of action to be cheating. I think it is simply a creative way out of an externally imposed box with no exit. Star Trek fans that remember the Kobayashi Maru test understand what I mean.

The post Nuclear plant designed, manufactured, constructed & tested in less than 2 years appeared first on Atomic Insights.

Photo Credit: Nuclear Plant Construction/shutterstock

Rod Adams's picture

Thank Rod for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.


Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on July 30, 2013

After much looking up and researching about the state of the global energy supplies, I have come to the conclusion that big money will resort to just about anything to prevent distruptive technologies. FF companies will even promote “lessor” but clean energy sources, to look good, as long as its storage isn’t made cheaper than coal.

Advanced machine automation could, in theory, provide humanity with the 100 or so thousand square miles of solar panel and its efficient storage… but I believe even the FF companies couldn’t do that even if they wanted too, because such automation is still in its infancy (what happens if just one part out of the billions break down).

Perhaps, we need to do an international goal to innovate the advanced 3d printer?

As for now, we need to invest in the safest possible reactor (I don’t know, just as long as the core itself is not pressurized) and mass produce them as modular units in a factory… NOTHING could out compete that!

Perhaps, the game IS rigged, because there is more money to be made from frying the biosphere than from LFTR (or similar).

Keep up the good work!

Rod Adams's picture
Rod Adams on July 31, 2013

@Robert Bernal

You are getting close to being fully aware.

If you look at the history of solar energy, for example, you will find that most of the initial private capital came from companies like BP and Chevron. They had to have known that the sun’s fundamental characteristics of diffuse, erratic power would never even nick their primary income stream.

Even if advanced automation makes solar panels as cheap as fabric, do you have any idea how much MATERIAL is involved in covering hundreds, much less thousands of square miles of land. Speaking of which, where are you going to find the resources to purchase the land to cover with the panels? What happens when the land starts to run low; can you manufacture more?

What is wrong with pressure? We have been dealing with retaining pressure for a long time. In fact, the ASME was initially formed to gather and share the engineering expertise required to safely handle the pressure inside of steam boilers. It is a well understood, painstaking, but successful branch of engineering.

I understand why people can get excited about LFTR, but there is no reason to try to sell it by damning other fission technology. Compare it to oil, natural gas and coal; they are the ones with the market share.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »