Register to reply

The Nuclear Power Thread

by russ_watters
Tags: nuclear, power
Share this thread:
mheslep
#181
Apr26-10, 10:18 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,077
Quote Quote by gmax137 View Post
Well, I'm not here to defend the NRC, but I do wonder, which designs have been proposed by any of the utility companies that were denied approval by the NRC? Actually, I'm not aware of any (and I would be interested to learn about any that were)....
There are several new small (150MWe or less) reactor-in-a-box designs (Babcock and Wilcox, Hyperion, etc) that the NRC has stated would not receive prompt attention. The NRC evaluation fee is several hundred million dollars over many years after all of which the NRC may say no. This disfavors all but the largest big industry designs. So we would not expect to see a long list of NRC rejections.
gmax137
#182
Apr26-10, 10:33 AM
P: 844
I'd still like to see a list of Construction Permits and (now) Combined Operating Licenses that were denied or disapproved by the NRC and AEC. Anyone know how to find such a list?

I think that's really a separate issue from the review fees, and other ways the agency may not favor small plants.
Astronuc
#183
Apr26-10, 02:40 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
There are several new small (150MWe or less) reactor-in-a-box designs (Babcock and Wilcox, Hyperion, etc) that the NRC has stated would not receive prompt attention. The NRC evaluation fee is several hundred million dollars over many years after all of which the NRC may say no. This disfavors all but the largest big industry designs. So we would not expect to see a long list of NRC rejections.
SMRs are getting attention from the NRC. New reactors based on non-standard or new technology are on the back burner.

The NRC will only seriously consider a reactor that has support from at least one utility.

If one looks at the post (#168 of this thread) on "Regulatory History Package on Design Certification", one will see the emphasis on standardization.

New concepts need to be proven at a higher level before the NRC would consider them.

Both thermal efficiency and capacity factor are important, and perhaps CF more so.
Astronuc
#184
Apr26-10, 10:14 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Meanwhile, here is Southern Company's brochure on Vogtle 3 and 4.

http://www.southerncompany.com/nucle...Vogtle_3_4.pdf
mheslep
#185
Apr27-10, 01:15 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,077
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Meanwhile, here is Southern Company's brochure on Vogtle 3 and 4.

http://www.southerncompany.com/nucle...Vogtle_3_4.pdf
Vogtle is an expansion of an existing site, minimizing infrastructure and changes to an existing community. So I'm surprised at some of the facts in the brochure:
New units are under construction at Plant Vogtle. Construction began in April 2009 and will continue through 2017
2017? Eight years of construction for a pre-existing site?

In August 2009, Southern Nuclear received an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the units. The ESP is one step in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) licensing process for new units. Completion of the ESP process resolves many site safety and environmental issues and determines the site is suitable to build a nuclear energy plant. Southern Nuclear’s ESP was issued with a Limited Work Authorization that allows limited safety construction to begin prior to receiving a license to construct and operate the plant.
How is it possible to begin a construction project this way, or to secure reasonable financing when they still don't have a license to construct, meaning it might be denied?
mheslep
#186
Apr27-10, 01:39 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,077
As an aside, I note from the brochure the Vogtle project uses 3147 acres. If that same acreage was used as for a solar farm (thermal or PV) the site would produce at a daily average rate of perhaps 400MWe (2.4 GWe peak*), starting after a construction time of ~12 months and obviously without requiring the complicated blessing of the NRC. A solar farm would not help Georgia much with base load, none the less the solar farm would have produced 3.2 billion kWh a year (or $320 million a year @10cents/kWh) for seven years before completion of these new nuclear plants.

*12e6 M^2 x 200We-peak/M^2, 4 peak equivalent hours per day.
Astronuc
#187
Apr27-10, 02:45 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
The NPPs like the AP1000, EPR and USAPWR are supposed to be constructed in 5 years or 60 months. I don't know if that's from first pour, or when they start excavation for the basemat.

According to SC folks I know, the part of the site where V3 and 4 are going was still largely undeveloped.

The utilities are counting on Uncle Sam to guarantee their investments, more or less.
mheslep
#188
Apr27-10, 03:09 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,077
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
The NPPs like the AP1000, EPR and USAPWR are supposed to be constructed in 5 years or 60 months. I don't know if that's from first pour, or when they start excavation for the basemat.
I have seen that same build time estimate. Apparently the reality is different. Georgia is spending money on construction now, but will not sell any electricity from reactors 3,4 before 2017.

According to SC folks I know, the part of the site where V3 and 4 are going was still largely undeveloped.
No doubt. By existing site I mean that, for example, road access and electrical transmission are already in place, evacuation plans still apply, and so on.
Astronuc
#189
Apr27-10, 04:08 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
I'd see that prediction too. Apparently the reality is different. Georgia is spending money on construction now, but will sell electricity from 3,4 before 2017.

No doubt. By existing site I mean that, for example, road access and electrical transmission are already in place, evacuation plans still apply, and so on.
I don't know all the details, but they do benefit from the fact that it's adjacent or included in keys areas of the current site.

Most of the new NPPs being planned by existing nuclear utilities have been sited at existing sites, many of which had been originally designed for 2, 3 or 4 units (STNP, Comanche Peak, Grand Gulf, River Bend, North Anna, . . . .). Others, e.g. Amarillo, are looking at entirely new sites.
mheslep
#190
Apr29-10, 03:32 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,077
Fuqing reactor construction on China's SE coast, one the of the "22 nuclear reactors under construction" in China. "[H]omegrown design based on France's existing light-water reactors."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25112/?a=f
QuantumPion
#191
Apr29-10, 04:15 PM
P: 766
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Fuqing reactor construction on China's SE coast, one the of the "22 nuclear reactors under construction" in China. "[H]omegrown design based on France's existing light-water reactors."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25112/?a=f
Hm, good name for a plant.
Astronuc
#192
May5-10, 11:39 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Japan gets organised for nuclear exports
05 May 2010
Quote Quote by WNN
A new company should be formed later this year to support Japanese exports of nuclear power technology and knowledge. The Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (Meti) has agreed to set up the firm with involvement from utilities the Tokyo, Chubu and Kansai electric power companies as well as with reactor vendors Toshiba, Hitachi and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The Innovation Network of Japan - a joint venture of government and industry - may also join. The move is seen as a reaction to South Korea's success in exporting to the United Arab Emirates and directed towards winning new nuclear contracts with the emerging nuclear countries of south-east Asia.
Source: World Nuclear News
gmax137
#193
May5-10, 11:58 AM
P: 844
"The move is seen as a reaction to South Korea's success in exporting to the United Arab Emirates and directed towards winning new nuclear contracts with the emerging nuclear countries of south-east Asia."

Maybe Toshiba (/ Westinghouse / ABB / CE) should have tried marketing their System 80+ design themselves.

I wonder if they have any scope of supply in the Korean version to be supplied to UAE.
Astronuc
#194
May10-10, 01:05 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Here's a surprise -

Dominion selects APWR for North Anna
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...a-1005104.html

Dominion had previously expressed interest in the ESBWR. Generally it's not a good idea to mix technologies (e.g., PWR and BWR) at one site.

The lead utility on Mitsubishi's US-APWR is Luminant (TXU) with two units planned for Comanche Peak near Ft. Worth, Tx (actually Glen Rose in Somervell County, Tx).
QuantumPion
#195
May10-10, 01:11 PM
P: 766
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Here's a surprise -

Dominion selects APWR for North Anna
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...a-1005104.html

Dominion had previously expressed interest in the ESBWR. Generally it's not a good idea to mix technologies (e.g., PWR and BWR) at one site.

The lead utility on Mitsubishi's US-APWR is Luminant (TXU) with two units planned for Comanche Peak near Ft. Worth, Tx (actually Glen Rose in Somervell County, Tx).
Heh, I called it!

We haven't decided to build it yet though, only selected the type if we do.
Astronuc
#196
May11-10, 11:21 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Rolls-Royce has announced the opening of two new university centres dedicated to nuclear technology at Imperial College in London and the University of Manchester.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...s-1105108.html

Colin Smith, Rolls-Royce's director of engineering and technology, attended opening ceremonies at both institutions, which he described as proven centres of excellence for nuclear science. "Rolls-Royce is well placed to deliver world-class engineering and manufacturing capability to support the delivery of global nuclear power programs and we are delighted that these new UTC collaborations will help us remain at the cutting edge of technology," he said.
U of M has the Dalton Nuclear Institute.
http://www.dalton.manchester.ac.uk/
mheslep
#197
May11-10, 01:16 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,077
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Rolls-Royce has announced the opening of two new university centres dedicated to nuclear technology at Imperial College in London and the University of Manchester.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...s-1105108.html



U of M has the Dalton Nuclear Institute.
http://www.dalton.manchester.ac.uk/
Curious, given the UK has no new nuclear plans that Ive seen.
Astronuc
#198
May11-10, 02:16 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Curious, given the UK has no new nuclear plans that I've seen.
EDF completes UK nuclear line-up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7532542.stm
The next generation of nuclear generators will most likely be built on existing sites owned by British Energy.

Dungeness in Kent, Sizewell in Suffolk, Bradwell in Essex and Hinkley Point in Somerset are among the most likely sites for new-build, according to industry insiders.
Possibly 4 EPRs.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
How do I become a Nuclear Engineer? (Split from Canadian Engineering Thread) Nuclear Engineering 16
What is the link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power stations? Nuclear Engineering 19
Oil,nuclear power General Discussion 21
Law against nuclear power? Nuclear Engineering 47
Nuclear engineers thread Nuclear Engineering 15