DEBATE OF THE WEEK: CAN THE U.S. COMPETE GLOBALLY ON THE SMR PLAYING FIELD?

By William Tucker
Last April, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu sounded an optimistic note in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.  While the U.S. is challenged in the manufacturing of full-sized reactors market, he said, an opportunity was opening in small modular reactors in the range of 75 to 150 megawatts.

“Small modular reactors  . . have compact designs and could be made in factories and transported to sites by truck or rail. SMRs would be ready to "plug and play" upon arrival. . . . Their small size makes them suitable to small electric grids so they are a good option for locations that cannot accommodate large-scale plants . . .. If we can develop this technology in the U.S. and build these reactors with American workers, we will have a key competitive edge.”

The article caused a flurry of excitement in the nuclear industry where a bevy of companies — ranging from established competitors Babcock & Wilcox (B&W), GE, Westinghouse and General Atomics to emerging companies such as NuScale and Hyperion — were advancing new SMR initiatives.  The government was becoming a proponent for serious nuclear energy innovation.  Legislation was introduced in the Congress to spur development and $40 million proposed in the President’s FY2011 budget request. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission followed suit projecting approval of a design as early as 2017.  TVA announced its interest in SMR deployment. Experienced manufacturers such as Electric Boat and Northrop Grumman were at the ready. And this week, Bechtel jumped on board the SMR express.  

Notwithstanding the U.S. awakening in this arena, the rest of the world is moving ahead rapidly.  Toshiba has a 10-MW “4S” (Super Safe, Small and Simple) reactor it offering to give to Galena, an isolated Alaskan village, as a demonstration.  Russia has a modular reactor it is floating into Siberian villages on barges.  Two weeks ago the Koreans announced they are entering the field as well.

Ironically we’ve been building “small modular reactors” for 50 years.  They go on U.S. Navy nuclear submarines. The reason B&W has a technical domain in SMRs — and related U.S. manufacturers have expertise in this market — is because it already has a business supplying them to the Navy.

But at the current pace of NRC design and licensing approval, it may be the better part of a decade before anybody can get something out the door in the U.S.  By that time, agile Japanese and Korean competitors may have moved out front in the global market.

So is it realistic to think America can compete in this field international?  And if not, what can we do about it?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

  • donb

    Can the US compete with its own SMRs? Yes. Will it be able to? Most likely not.

    Competing will require innovation and urgency. Companies can do both. Government, short of facing an existential crisis like a war, cannot.

    There are several well entrenched attitudes in the regulatory structure that are nearly impossible to overcome:
    1. The nuclear industry will not do things safely unless they are watched closely.
    2. The nuclear industry is a source of cash to be milked.
    3. Regulators, when faced with providing value vs. protecting their jobs, will opt for the latter.
    4. We live in a post-industrial age, so all this stuff really isn’t that important, except for point #2.

    In addition, there are some in congress who are adept at manipulating the regulatory structure to promote their own opposition to nuclear energy. This is why funding for the NRC is limited as a budget item, even though the funding comes largely from those seeking approvals and licenses.

    Any successful sales of Small Nuclear Reactors to other countries hinge on demonstrated successful use. If there were a sense of regulatory urgency, likely we would be seeing sites for SMRs under construction right now in places like Alaska and Hawaii. While there are some programs in the Energy and Commerce departments that promote SMRs, they will be largely ineffective due to the obstacle course set in place by the NRC.

  • donb

    Can the US compete with its own SMRs? Yes. Will it be able to? Most likely not.

    Competing will require innovation and urgency. Companies can do both. Government, short of facing an existential crisis like a war, cannot.

    There are several well entrenched attitudes in the regulatory structure that are nearly impossible to overcome:
    1. The nuclear industry will not do things safely unless they are watched closely.
    2. The nuclear industry is a source of cash to be milked.
    3. Regulators, when faced with providing value vs. protecting their jobs, will opt for the latter.
    4. We live in a post-industrial age, so all this stuff really isn’t that important, except for point #2.

    In addition, there are some in congress who are adept at manipulating the regulatory structure to promote their own opposition to nuclear energy. This is why funding for the NRC is limited as a budget item, even though the funding comes largely from those seeking approvals and licenses.

    Any successful sales of Small Nuclear Reactors to other countries hinge on demonstrated successful use. If there were a sense of regulatory urgency, likely we would be seeing sites for SMRs under construction right now in places like Alaska and Hawaii. While there are some programs in the Energy and Commerce departments that promote SMRs, they will be largely ineffective due to the obstacle course set in place by the NRC.

  • donb

    Can the US compete with its own SMRs? Yes. Will it be able to? Most likely not.

    Competing will require innovation and urgency. Companies can do both. Government, short of facing an existential crisis like a war, cannot.

    There are several well entrenched attitudes in the regulatory structure that are nearly impossible to overcome:
    1. The nuclear industry will not do things safely unless they are watched closely.
    2. The nuclear industry is a source of cash to be milked.
    3. Regulators, when faced with providing value vs. protecting their jobs, will opt for the latter.
    4. We live in a post-industrial age, so all this stuff really isn’t that important, except for point #2.

    In addition, there are some in congress who are adept at manipulating the regulatory structure to promote their own opposition to nuclear energy. This is why funding for the NRC is limited as a budget item, even though the funding comes largely from those seeking approvals and licenses.

    Any successful sales of Small Nuclear Reactors to other countries hinge on demonstrated successful use. If there were a sense of regulatory urgency, likely we would be seeing sites for SMRs under construction right now in places like Alaska and Hawaii. While there are some programs in the Energy and Commerce departments that promote SMRs, they will be largely ineffective due to the obstacle course set in place by the NRC.

  • SMR Yes

    Hard to argue with Don B. I think what he’s saying is — it’s hard to sell cookies internationally when the cookie jar is empty at home.

    That said, there is no disagreement with Secretary Chu that SMRs should be a priority initiative and that there is a potentially ripe market abroad — and that SMRs can in tandem with large reactors be a catalyst for the Renaissance. But as usual, the government is all talk and no action. $40 million rife with beaureacratic considerations and business as usual at the NRC is hardly a recipe for success.

    There is a growing bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill that recognizes that some kind of Apollo project is needed — to crystallize customers, among other things. But legislation is hard to advance in the current stalemated partisan environment.

    As noted, the window of opportunity is already shrinking and ultimately the answer lies with the creativity and fortitutde outside the beltway to get this done. This will be a litmus test of sorts for the U.S. Renaissance.

  • SMR Yes

    Hard to argue with Don B. I think what he’s saying is — it’s hard to sell cookies internationally when the cookie jar is empty at home.

    That said, there is no disagreement with Secretary Chu that SMRs should be a priority initiative and that there is a potentially ripe market abroad — and that SMRs can in tandem with large reactors be a catalyst for the Renaissance. But as usual, the government is all talk and no action. $40 million rife with beaureacratic considerations and business as usual at the NRC is hardly a recipe for success.

    There is a growing bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill that recognizes that some kind of Apollo project is needed — to crystallize customers, among other things. But legislation is hard to advance in the current stalemated partisan environment.

    As noted, the window of opportunity is already shrinking and ultimately the answer lies with the creativity and fortitutde outside the beltway to get this done. This will be a litmus test of sorts for the U.S. Renaissance.

  • SMR Yes

    Hard to argue with Don B. I think what he’s saying is — it’s hard to sell cookies internationally when the cookie jar is empty at home.

    That said, there is no disagreement with Secretary Chu that SMRs should be a priority initiative and that there is a potentially ripe market abroad — and that SMRs can in tandem with large reactors be a catalyst for the Renaissance. But as usual, the government is all talk and no action. $40 million rife with beaureacratic considerations and business as usual at the NRC is hardly a recipe for success.

    There is a growing bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill that recognizes that some kind of Apollo project is needed — to crystallize customers, among other things. But legislation is hard to advance in the current stalemated partisan environment.

    As noted, the window of opportunity is already shrinking and ultimately the answer lies with the creativity and fortitutde outside the beltway to get this done. This will be a litmus test of sorts for the U.S. Renaissance.

  • http://canadianenergyissues.com/ Steve Aplin

    There’s another route to success, however. Sell/build/demonstrate an American SMR in another country that has a solid and respected regulatory regime. E.g., Canada.

  • http://canadianenergyissues.com/ Steve Aplin

    There’s another route to success, however. Sell/build/demonstrate an American SMR in another country that has a solid and respected regulatory regime. E.g., Canada.

  • http://canadianenergyissues.com/ Steve Aplin

    There’s another route to success, however. Sell/build/demonstrate an American SMR in another country that has a solid and respected regulatory regime. E.g., Canada.

  • Think Globally, Act Locally

    To answer your questions.

    Is it realistic to think that we can compete internationally in the SMR arena?

    Yes, obviously this has passed the “ha ha” test with the investment community and a lot of U.S. CEOs.

    What can we do about it.

    –Fast track NRC licensing

    –Deploy via a jumpstarting of the U.S. customer base, perhaps by incentivizing utilities such as TVA (a good hybrid) or via some kind of private-government energy park consortium

    –In the short to medium term, getting the government’s divining rod out of the way

  • Think Globally, Act Locally

    To answer your questions.

    Is it realistic to think that we can compete internationally in the SMR arena?

    Yes, obviously this has passed the “ha ha” test with the investment community and a lot of U.S. CEOs.

    What can we do about it.

    –Fast track NRC licensing

    –Deploy via a jumpstarting of the U.S. customer base, perhaps by incentivizing utilities such as TVA (a good hybrid) or via some kind of private-government energy park consortium

    –In the short to medium term, getting the government’s divining rod out of the way

  • Think Globally, Act Locally

    To answer your questions.

    Is it realistic to think that we can compete internationally in the SMR arena?

    Yes, obviously this has passed the “ha ha” test with the investment community and a lot of U.S. CEOs.

    What can we do about it.

    –Fast track NRC licensing

    –Deploy via a jumpstarting of the U.S. customer base, perhaps by incentivizing utilities such as TVA (a good hybrid) or via some kind of private-government energy park consortium

    –In the short to medium term, getting the government’s divining rod out of the way

  • http://www.nei.org Paul Genoa

    The U.S. can and will compete in the global market for small reactors. And we will do so by having these innovative designs certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the “Gold Standard” for safety worldwide, not by rolling back the very safety standards that convey this quality pedigree to U.S. reactors.

    It may take a bit longer to demonstrate compliance with NRC’s stringent licensing requirements but small reactor designs that achieve this critical milestone will own a significant marketing asset. Not only will these designs exceed the highest safety standards, they will also exceed stringent owner requirements for design features that impact operation and maintenance, yielding a superior levelized cost of electricity.

    That is not to say that further licensing efficiencies can’t be achieved under NRC’s new licensing framework. Multiple environmental reviews seem redundant and could be combined to achieve schedule improvements. Further, NRC’s licensing requirements are crafted to gain schedule improvements on subsequent applications for a standardized plant. These provisions are being tested now on large reactors today and should yield improvements for small reactors in the future.

    Once certified by the NRC, these smaller reactors will be fabricated in a controlled, manufacturing setting, achieving high levels of productivity and quality. A convergence of U.S. expertise, developed to support our nuclear navy and modular ship-building construction needs, positions select U.S. companies with a further competitive advantage.

    Small reactors have captured the public imagination. Their benefits are increasingly being recognized worldwide. There will be global competition for this innovative sector of the clean energy market. The U.S. is well positioned to be an innovation leader in this market and secure the significant economic and employment benefits it has the potential to earn.

  • http://www.nei.org Paul Genoa

    The U.S. can and will compete in the global market for small reactors. And we will do so by having these innovative designs certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the “Gold Standard” for safety worldwide, not by rolling back the very safety standards that convey this quality pedigree to U.S. reactors.

    It may take a bit longer to demonstrate compliance with NRC’s stringent licensing requirements but small reactor designs that achieve this critical milestone will own a significant marketing asset. Not only will these designs exceed the highest safety standards, they will also exceed stringent owner requirements for design features that impact operation and maintenance, yielding a superior levelized cost of electricity.

    That is not to say that further licensing efficiencies can’t be achieved under NRC’s new licensing framework. Multiple environmental reviews seem redundant and could be combined to achieve schedule improvements. Further, NRC’s licensing requirements are crafted to gain schedule improvements on subsequent applications for a standardized plant. These provisions are being tested now on large reactors today and should yield improvements for small reactors in the future.

    Once certified by the NRC, these smaller reactors will be fabricated in a controlled, manufacturing setting, achieving high levels of productivity and quality. A convergence of U.S. expertise, developed to support our nuclear navy and modular ship-building construction needs, positions select U.S. companies with a further competitive advantage.

    Small reactors have captured the public imagination. Their benefits are increasingly being recognized worldwide. There will be global competition for this innovative sector of the clean energy market. The U.S. is well positioned to be an innovation leader in this market and secure the significant economic and employment benefits it has the potential to earn.

  • http://www.nei.org Paul Genoa

    The U.S. can and will compete in the global market for small reactors. And we will do so by having these innovative designs certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the “Gold Standard” for safety worldwide, not by rolling back the very safety standards that convey this quality pedigree to U.S. reactors.

    It may take a bit longer to demonstrate compliance with NRC’s stringent licensing requirements but small reactor designs that achieve this critical milestone will own a significant marketing asset. Not only will these designs exceed the highest safety standards, they will also exceed stringent owner requirements for design features that impact operation and maintenance, yielding a superior levelized cost of electricity.

    That is not to say that further licensing efficiencies can’t be achieved under NRC’s new licensing framework. Multiple environmental reviews seem redundant and could be combined to achieve schedule improvements. Further, NRC’s licensing requirements are crafted to gain schedule improvements on subsequent applications for a standardized plant. These provisions are being tested now on large reactors today and should yield improvements for small reactors in the future.

    Once certified by the NRC, these smaller reactors will be fabricated in a controlled, manufacturing setting, achieving high levels of productivity and quality. A convergence of U.S. expertise, developed to support our nuclear navy and modular ship-building construction needs, positions select U.S. companies with a further competitive advantage.

    Small reactors have captured the public imagination. Their benefits are increasingly being recognized worldwide. There will be global competition for this innovative sector of the clean energy market. The U.S. is well positioned to be an innovation leader in this market and secure the significant economic and employment benefits it has the potential to earn.

  • Think globally, Act Locally

    Mr Genoa

    As Robin Leach would say, Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams — may all your wishes come true. We share common aspirations for the U.S. Renaissance and Made-in-America SMRs but the status quo suggests that licensing efficiencies are very necessary. Certainly these enhancements can be achieved without compromising the U.S. Gold Standard, which is indeed an asset. However, as the UAE large reactor experience has shown, it’s pollyannish to think we can prevail on this attribute alone and with the current paradigm generally.

  • Think globally, Act Locally

    Mr Genoa

    As Robin Leach would say, Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams — may all your wishes come true. We share common aspirations for the U.S. Renaissance and Made-in-America SMRs but the status quo suggests that licensing efficiencies are very necessary. Certainly these enhancements can be achieved without compromising the U.S. Gold Standard, which is indeed an asset. However, as the UAE large reactor experience has shown, it’s pollyannish to think we can prevail on this attribute alone and with the current paradigm generally.

  • Think globally, Act Locally

    Mr Genoa

    As Robin Leach would say, Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams — may all your wishes come true. We share common aspirations for the U.S. Renaissance and Made-in-America SMRs but the status quo suggests that licensing efficiencies are very necessary. Certainly these enhancements can be achieved without compromising the U.S. Gold Standard, which is indeed an asset. However, as the UAE large reactor experience has shown, it’s pollyannish to think we can prevail on this attribute alone and with the current paradigm generally.

  • http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com Rod Adams

    I have to agree with Paul here. The US MIGHT lag a bit behind some other producers, but then again, we might not. Toshiba has been talking about supplying a 4S to Galena, Alaska since at least March of 2005 when I wrote the below linked article:

    http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html

    Russia has been talking about floating nuclear power plants with reactors based on their icebreaker reactors since at least July 1996 when an announcement that they had completed the technical design stage for a series of such plants appeared in an Atomic Insights new summary:

    http://www.atomicinsights.com/jul96/news_Jul96.html

    Neither project has resulted in any operational units yet – though the Russians appear to be making some progress in construction. If Toshiba was so interested in small reactors, why haven’t they selected a different initial customer and moved forward if they ran into obstacles here in the US?

    I have a very good feeling abut the prospects for success in evolutionary light water reactors here in the US and I reasonably confident that success with that step will breed additional success with more innovative designs. The best analogy I can think of for where we stand today is that we are essentially where business computing was in about 1965. At that time, though there were some small, specialized computers being used in certain applications – like in the weapons control systems on board US Navy ship – essentially all of the commercial computers in the world were very large, room sized devices operated by people in white lab coats behind high security barriers.

    Selling computing devices was restricted and discouraged because they could potentially be used by the folks behind the Iron Curtain to design and deliver weapons.

    Then along came the space program using mid sized computers built by companies like Sperry, Univac, and Honeywell based on what they had learned in military computing systems and we were off to the races.

    The final reason for my optimism is that more and more people are recognizing that the US in 2010 has reached an ah ha moment similar to what de Gaul recognized in France in 1973. We now have “no coal, no oil, no gas and no choice” – at least in the sense that we no longer have the ability to expand our supplies of any of the fossil fuels to meet market demands.

  • http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com Rod Adams

    I have to agree with Paul here. The US MIGHT lag a bit behind some other producers, but then again, we might not. Toshiba has been talking about supplying a 4S to Galena, Alaska since at least March of 2005 when I wrote the below linked article:

    http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html

    Russia has been talking about floating nuclear power plants with reactors based on their icebreaker reactors since at least July 1996 when an announcement that they had completed the technical design stage for a series of such plants appeared in an Atomic Insights new summary:

    http://www.atomicinsights.com/jul96/news_Jul96.html

    Neither project has resulted in any operational units yet – though the Russians appear to be making some progress in construction. If Toshiba was so interested in small reactors, why haven’t they selected a different initial customer and moved forward if they ran into obstacles here in the US?

    I have a very good feeling abut the prospects for success in evolutionary light water reactors here in the US and I reasonably confident that success with that step will breed additional success with more innovative designs. The best analogy I can think of for where we stand today is that we are essentially where business computing was in about 1965. At that time, though there were some small, specialized computers being used in certain applications – like in the weapons control systems on board US Navy ship – essentially all of the commercial computers in the world were very large, room sized devices operated by people in white lab coats behind high security barriers.

    Selling computing devices was restricted and discouraged because they could potentially be used by the folks behind the Iron Curtain to design and deliver weapons.

    Then along came the space program using mid sized computers built by companies like Sperry, Univac, and Honeywell based on what they had learned in military computing systems and we were off to the races.

    The final reason for my optimism is that more and more people are recognizing that the US in 2010 has reached an ah ha moment similar to what de Gaul recognized in France in 1973. We now have “no coal, no oil, no gas and no choice” – at least in the sense that we no longer have the ability to expand our supplies of any of the fossil fuels to meet market demands.

  • http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com Rod Adams

    I have to agree with Paul here. The US MIGHT lag a bit behind some other producers, but then again, we might not. Toshiba has been talking about supplying a 4S to Galena, Alaska since at least March of 2005 when I wrote the below linked article:

    http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html

    Russia has been talking about floating nuclear power plants with reactors based on their icebreaker reactors since at least July 1996 when an announcement that they had completed the technical design stage for a series of such plants appeared in an Atomic Insights new summary:

    http://www.atomicinsights.com/jul96/news_Jul96.html

    Neither project has resulted in any operational units yet – though the Russians appear to be making some progress in construction. If Toshiba was so interested in small reactors, why haven’t they selected a different initial customer and moved forward if they ran into obstacles here in the US?

    I have a very good feeling abut the prospects for success in evolutionary light water reactors here in the US and I reasonably confident that success with that step will breed additional success with more innovative designs. The best analogy I can think of for where we stand today is that we are essentially where business computing was in about 1965. At that time, though there were some small, specialized computers being used in certain applications – like in the weapons control systems on board US Navy ship – essentially all of the commercial computers in the world were very large, room sized devices operated by people in white lab coats behind high security barriers.

    Selling computing devices was restricted and discouraged because they could potentially be used by the folks behind the Iron Curtain to design and deliver weapons.

    Then along came the space program using mid sized computers built by companies like Sperry, Univac, and Honeywell based on what they had learned in military computing systems and we were off to the races.

    The final reason for my optimism is that more and more people are recognizing that the US in 2010 has reached an ah ha moment similar to what de Gaul recognized in France in 1973. We now have “no coal, no oil, no gas and no choice” – at least in the sense that we no longer have the ability to expand our supplies of any of the fossil fuels to meet market demands.

  • SteveK9

    I wonder if a most of the enthusiasm for SMR’s is due to discouragement over the recent experience in building large reactors, as well as a bit of ‘small is beautiful’. Economies of scale still matter. SMR’s are interesting and have a role to play, but the heavy lifting worldwide will come from large reactors. We need to improve the way we manage and build these. This is happening now with designs like the AP1000. It will be critical to see how the Chinese program develops in terms of time / cost for construction of AP1000’s and for the CAP1400 variant. I’ve also heard that the Chinese may build 6 EPR’s at Taishan…6 X 1650 MW is an awful lot of SMR’s.

  • SteveK9

    I wonder if a most of the enthusiasm for SMR’s is due to discouragement over the recent experience in building large reactors, as well as a bit of ‘small is beautiful’. Economies of scale still matter. SMR’s are interesting and have a role to play, but the heavy lifting worldwide will come from large reactors. We need to improve the way we manage and build these. This is happening now with designs like the AP1000. It will be critical to see how the Chinese program develops in terms of time / cost for construction of AP1000’s and for the CAP1400 variant. I’ve also heard that the Chinese may build 6 EPR’s at Taishan…6 X 1650 MW is an awful lot of SMR’s.

  • SteveK9

    I wonder if a most of the enthusiasm for SMR’s is due to discouragement over the recent experience in building large reactors, as well as a bit of ‘small is beautiful’. Economies of scale still matter. SMR’s are interesting and have a role to play, but the heavy lifting worldwide will come from large reactors. We need to improve the way we manage and build these. This is happening now with designs like the AP1000. It will be critical to see how the Chinese program develops in terms of time / cost for construction of AP1000’s and for the CAP1400 variant. I’ve also heard that the Chinese may build 6 EPR’s at Taishan…6 X 1650 MW is an awful lot of SMR’s.

  • Catawba Cat

    I agree with most of the above very helpful repartee. The point about large reactors hits home. Are SMRs a convenient sleigh of hand to distract us from large reactor issues as we run around the red zone? It appears the policy and PR attention has shifted accordingly. Can we walk and chew gum on big and small? Do we actually have a platinum standard or a gold standard? Where are the customers? Despite these rambling, I remain encouraged that the glass is half full and that maybe we’re actually ahead of the curve. .

  • Catawba Cat

    I agree with most of the above very helpful repartee. The point about large reactors hits home. Are SMRs a convenient sleigh of hand to distract us from large reactor issues as we run around the red zone? It appears the policy and PR attention has shifted accordingly. Can we walk and chew gum on big and small? Do we actually have a platinum standard or a gold standard? Where are the customers? Despite these rambling, I remain encouraged that the glass is half full and that maybe we’re actually ahead of the curve. .

  • Catawba Cat

    I agree with most of the above very helpful repartee. The point about large reactors hits home. Are SMRs a convenient sleigh of hand to distract us from large reactor issues as we run around the red zone? It appears the policy and PR attention has shifted accordingly. Can we walk and chew gum on big and small? Do we actually have a platinum standard or a gold standard? Where are the customers? Despite these rambling, I remain encouraged that the glass is half full and that maybe we’re actually ahead of the curve. .

  • donb

    Rod Adams wrote:
    …essentially all of the commercial computers in the world were very large, room sized devices operated by people in white lab coats behind high security barriers.
    Selling computing devices was restricted and discouraged because they could potentially be used by the folks behind the Iron Curtain to design and deliver weapons.
    Then along came the space program using mid sized computers built by companies like Sperry, Univac, and Honeywell based on what they had learned in military computing systems and we were off to the races.

    The critical difference here is that the sale of mid-sized computers was not restricted, so the market was able to take off.

    Contrast this to SMRs. The same regulatory structures that make large reactors so difficult to license and build are also present for the smaller reactors.

  • donb

    Rod Adams wrote:
    …essentially all of the commercial computers in the world were very large, room sized devices operated by people in white lab coats behind high security barriers.
    Selling computing devices was restricted and discouraged because they could potentially be used by the folks behind the Iron Curtain to design and deliver weapons.
    Then along came the space program using mid sized computers built by companies like Sperry, Univac, and Honeywell based on what they had learned in military computing systems and we were off to the races.

    The critical difference here is that the sale of mid-sized computers was not restricted, so the market was able to take off.

    Contrast this to SMRs. The same regulatory structures that make large reactors so difficult to license and build are also present for the smaller reactors.

  • donb

    Rod Adams wrote:
    …essentially all of the commercial computers in the world were very large, room sized devices operated by people in white lab coats behind high security barriers.
    Selling computing devices was restricted and discouraged because they could potentially be used by the folks behind the Iron Curtain to design and deliver weapons.
    Then along came the space program using mid sized computers built by companies like Sperry, Univac, and Honeywell based on what they had learned in military computing systems and we were off to the races.

    The critical difference here is that the sale of mid-sized computers was not restricted, so the market was able to take off.

    Contrast this to SMRs. The same regulatory structures that make large reactors so difficult to license and build are also present for the smaller reactors.

  • http://netreviewscentral.com internet marketing tools

    There are some exciting web advertising tools obtainable for you to use to maximize your on the net corporation success. Many of they’re out there by various world wide web advertising experts for example Chris Cobb. Chris Cobb offers a couple of world wide web promotion software programs to assist get you began and preserve your on the web business. These kinds of programs will offer you the advice which you should get up and running with doing significantly of income.There are a wide variety of Google ranking tips that you just will find along your world wide web advertising and marketing journey. These will allow you to to acquire your site ranked highly between search engines, specifically Google. Google is by far one of the most popular search engine obtainable so you definitely would like to be very easily observed on this particular search engine.

  • http://links2rss.com/feed/1307922135.xml antivirus firewall software

    Awesome write-up antivirus firewall software man.. I extremely loved it but I have a question for everybody, are you acquiring difficulties seeing images?

  • http://www.westerndigitalexternalharddrives.com Western Digital External Hard Drives

    this is something that has helped me very recetnly so thankyou

  • http://www.barter-it.ie/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=summary;u=4516 Brandon Schladweiler

    I love your website cause it contain very informative article

  • http://indiepropub.com/nicki-minaj-live-in-philly-for-one-night-only/312335/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IndieProPub+%28Indie+Pro+Pub%29&utm_content=FeedBurn Nicki Minaj

    Thats some great fundamentals there, already know some of that, but you can always learn . I doubt a “kid” could put together such information as dolphin278 suggested. Maybe he’s just trying to be “controversial? lol