IT was certainly nice to read the many different articles now being written supporting the idea that we should at least investigate the new nuclear technology as a possible solution for the long term energy requirements of the CNMI. And I am very happy to see the questions you have asked. I’m sure that many others also have legitimate questions that need to be answered — including myself.
After all, I’m no nuclear expert either — but I do read published references and listen to those who are recognized in the field as knowing what they are talking about. Then, try to pass it along for everyone to see — and ask their own questions.
I’ll try to answer what I can (by citing the lit I have read) and for those others, we’ll seek the answers from those who do know. I have recently opened a dialogue with Dr. Andrew Kadak. He is a leading nuclear physicist and head of the nuclear technology department at M.I.T. and also with Ms. Anne Lavergeon, the CEO of AREVA, France’s equivalent to the U. S. NRC; with its Mr. Robert Price, also, fortunately for me, in our loop. There are many others as well.
Anyway, to get to the point: “Where can we see one of them in operation?” Unfortunately, the technology is so new that there is not one currently operating “in the field.” There are several, however, in laboratory settings (full scale dudes) that, if the time comes, we will be able to visit — and some of them have been around for more than 5 years. (Burns and Roe, Toshiba, Purple Mountain, Westinghouse, GE, Uranium Information Centre, Ltd. and General Atomics).
“What are the actual audited operating expenses and resultant kwh?” Purple Mountain Ventures and Burns and Roe have sent me a spread sheet of their “construction and operating” costs — and it contains contingencies for 30 percent cost overruns. But primarily, the expenses are extrapolated from previously known expenses resultant from other, more primitive installations. This was difficult, since many of those previous expenses have been eliminated by the newer technology. For instance, personnel costs are one factor. It used to require an entire team of highly skilled and trained (and highly paid) operators — now the new power supply module is being certified for UNATTENDED operation in at least one design — which means the entire plant will be run and maintained with just about the same complement as our current facility (to run the rotating equipment). As you may know, the kwh charge to the household is based on cost of operation and FUEL is the biggie here. It is known that the “fuel” for the new plant based on its chemical life expectancy calculated by the laws of physics is something like 2 to 3 mils per kwh — a really low cost for fuel, so the resultant kwh to the home is also much lower. (Same references as above)
Additionally, the cost of the physical facility itself has been reduced significantly as there are no longer requirements for huge containment and control units or cooling and emission towers. Even the NRC regulatory requirements (previously a large cost factor) have been reduced to an insignificant figure.
“Has the module ever been run out and exchanged.?” Simple answer: No. The technology just isn’t old enough for that. But we do know exactly what a new one costs (including the labor to do it and disposal of the “old” one). And the current estimate for “unplugging” and putting in the new one is estimated at (in the case of Hyperion rector) $3.866 million; and that’s for a module that will last between 5 and 8 years. The same cost for oil for that period (for the same mega wattage) would be about $100 million at current prices.
“What if the company goes out of business?” Well, I guess anything is possible, but the companies we’re talking to at present have been around for a very long long time and are multi-billion dollar corporations. I sort of doubt this one will be important. There is one company involved in the mix that I am not yet permitted to expose — but they are a well known name and worth a hundred billion dollars — or so.
“What if we build it and the darned thing just doesn’t work...as claimed?” That would be a good question for the engineers and DOE and NRC. But my own opinion is that it would never be built if there wasn’t a great deal of security and assurance in its capability to operate as planned.
I also agree with you that coal IS an alternative that should be looked at, primarily because it really is a cheap fuel and is nearby and relatively quick to install. My only problem with coal (a fossil fuel) is the apparently unsolvable greenhouse emissions from its use. Global warming is a real problem, getting worse, and there are regulations in the offing that may make such emission controls prohibitive in cost.
To answer your final question; “Would Dr. Arkle mind if they built it next door?” NOT AT ALL! That’s based on my understanding of published literature since February of 2006. I, too, have some questions for the real experts — and we ARE in the process of getting some of these people here by this summer.
Such a plant would be utterly quite, small (less than ? acre) and with no emissions whatsoever. Even the utility lines emanating from it would be underground to some extent as would be the fuel module itself. Who could ask for a better neighbor?

DR. THOMAS D. ARKLE JR.
San Jose, Tinian