Register to reply

The Nuclear Power Thread

by russ_watters
Tags: nuclear, power
Share this thread:
Astronuc
#253
Oct4-10, 11:05 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Ningde 4 the latest Chinese reactor project
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN..._04101001.html
Some 24 reactors are now under construction in China.
mheslep
#254
Oct4-10, 11:07 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Nuclear Power InstituteóDeveloping The Nuclear Industry Workforce

With eight new nuclear reactors approved for construction in Texas,
The NRC has not approved any eight new reactors in Texas. The NRC has not granted final approval to operate to any new reactors in the US.
Astronuc
#255
Oct4-10, 11:53 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
The NRC has not approved any eight new reactors in Texas. The NRC has not granted final approval to operate to any new reactors in the US.
The approval is not necessarily from the NRC, although that is what counts. I suspect the approval is in the form of letters of intent or MOUs from utilities, although considering when that was written, applications for 4 units may have been withdrawn or put on hold.

The NRC has certified the ABWR, but the applications amended given the change in relationship between GE, Hitachi and Toshiba, which has been done. COL docketed.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reac...nded-abwr.html

Meanwhile, certification of the Mitsubishi US-APWR is pending. COL docketed.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reac...nche-peak.html

Exelon did have plans for two ESBWRs in Victoria, but I believe those have been deferred.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reac.../victoria.html
June 14 NRC docketed Exelon's ESP application for Victoria County, originally submitted as a COLA.

There was a private group Amarillo Power (UniStar) looking at two unitsnear Amarillo, but I don't think that was serious.

Re: http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/neScore...Scorecard.html
gmax137
#256
Oct4-10, 01:15 PM
P: 844
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
The NRC has not approved any eight new reactors in Texas. The NRC has not granted final approval to operate to any new reactors in the US.
Also, the state public utility commission usually (typically?) has to approve new plant construction as being 'necessary' by some specific criteria. I don't know if that's the case in Texas, or if that approval was in fact in place there.
Astronuc
#257
Oct5-10, 11:30 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Major engineering contract for Bellefonte
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-...t-0510107.html
05 October 2010
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has awarded Areva a contract for engineering and design work towards the completion of the Bellefonte nuclear power plant.

. . . . The NRC reinstated the construction permits for the reactors in 2009. Assuming TVA's board decides to proceed with the completion of unit 1, the plant would be expected to start up around 2018-2019.
Astronuc
#258
Nov2-10, 08:19 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,4652014.story
Development of a new nuclear power plant in Maryland suffered a major setback last week with the disclosure that Constellation Energy Group has withdrawn from the federal loan guarantee program. Without those guarantees, it would appear unlikely that Calvert Cliffs 3 will be developed by Constellation and its partner in the project, Electricite de France.

. . . .
The cost of $880 million on a $7.5 billion loan (for a plant currently estimated to cost $9.6 billion) was too great of a burden for the company to take on. The company, and the nuclear industry, feel that the OMB over-estimates the risk.
mheslep
#259
Nov3-10, 02:56 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,4652014.story
The cost of $880 million on a $7.5 billion loan (for a plant currently estimated to cost $9.6 billion) was too great of a burden for the company to take on. The company, and the nuclear industry, feel that the OMB over-estimates the risk.
That is yet more nuclear development stopped by government imposed costs.
Astronuc
#260
Nov3-10, 05:47 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
That is yet more nuclear development stopped by government imposed costs.
As opposed to bank or investor imposed costs?! Note that banks and investment funds are not chomping at the bit on 'high risk' nuclear power plants, and I'm sure they'd want a hefty premium up front, and high interest rates.
mheslep
#261
Nov3-10, 06:03 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
As opposed to bank or investor imposed costs?! Note that banks and investment funds are not chomping at the bit on 'high risk' nuclear power plants, and I'm sure they'd want a hefty premium up front, and high interest rates.
Eh? As I understood the article, OMB was setting higher than reasonable, ie forcing higher interest rates than even private capital would have charged. That, and OMB was forcing additional guarantees. So, all above and beyond what would happen without federal involvement, say in China where total plant costs are much lower even though they are exposed to essentially the same world wide cost of capital.
joelupchurch
#262
Nov3-10, 06:47 PM
P: 149
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
As opposed to bank or investor imposed costs?! Note that banks and investment funds are not chomping at the bit on 'high risk' nuclear power plants, and I'm sure they'd want a hefty premium up front, and high interest rates.
But the risks are created by the government. We have had two nuclear reactors that the government refused to issue operating licenses. The companies spent billions of dollars and the government wouldn't let them operate the plants. That doesn't even include all the costs imposed by the insane NRC licensing procedures. The Chinese are building reactors using our designs in less time that it takes the NRC to issue a license to start construction in the United States.

Remember we are talking about reactor designs that the NRC has already approved. There is a whole other process for getting a new design approved.

It really bugs me that opponents of nuclear power say that is too risky when they are the ones that create the risk.
mheslep
#263
Nov3-10, 07:33 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by joelupchurch View Post
But the risks are created by the government. We have had two nuclear reactors that the government refused to issue operating licenses. The companies spent billions of dollars and the government wouldn't let them operate the plants. That doesn't even include all the costs imposed by the insane NRC licensing procedures.
Yes! Exactly.

The Chinese are building reactors using our designs in less time that it takes the NRC to issue a license to start construction in the United States.

Remember we are talking about reactor designs that the NRC has already approved. There is a whole other process for getting a new design approved.

It really bugs me that opponents of nuclear power say that is too risky when they are the ones that create the risk.
Hmm, two different types of risk here. Financial and accident/proliferation safety.
joelupchurch
#264
Nov3-10, 08:00 PM
P: 149
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Yes! Exactly.

Hmm, two different types of risk here. Financial and accident/proliferation safety.
Yes, but we are talking about designs that NRC has already approved. The important job for the NRC is to make sure the contractors and subcontractors are building the reactor to the design they approved. They can't do that job until construction starts, so the extra delay provides no extra safety.

I don't mean sitting at a desk in Washington checking paperwork. I mean actual eyeballs at the construction site. The Ap1000 is a modular design, where most of the reactor is built in factories, which should make it easier to control the quality. I wouldn't be surprised, when we start building AP1000 reactors, if we end up buying components from the Chinese.
Astronuc
#265
Nov3-10, 08:36 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Eh? As I understood the article, OMB was setting higher than reasonable, ie forcing higher interest rates than even private capital would have charged. That, and OMB was forcing additional guarantees. So, all above and beyond what would happen without federal involvement, say in China where total plant costs are much lower even though they are exposed to essentially the same world wide cost of capital.
Um the Chinese government is involved in the building of those reactors in China, and they are flush with cash. In the US, we have public utilities or mechant power producers who have to go to the capital markets. The reason for the government loan guarantees is that the utilities could not get financing from the financial markets.

It could very well be that the government is over-estimating the risk of default on the $7.5 billion loan.


The Chinese government can also accept less stingent safety standards since they are will to accept the loss of life that would be unacceptable in the US (unless one lives in New Orleans ). And the Chinese people cannot sue the government or companies they way its done in the US.

Large forgings have so far been ordered from Japan until shops can be established in the US.

Quote Quote by joelupchurch
But the risks are created by the government. We have had two nuclear reactors that the government refused to issue operating licenses. The companies spent billions of dollars and the government wouldn't let them operate the plants.
Which two nuclear reactors? Usually the government has a very good reason not to issue a license. There are two sites under construction - South Texas and Vogtle. The rest are either slowly moving along or have been suspended or deferred for various reasons.
mheslep
#266
Nov3-10, 09:09 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Um the Chinese government is involved in the building of those reactors in China,
Yes of course, but the point is the government there apparently does not act to drive up the cost, relatively speaking.
and they are flush with cash.
What does this have to do keeping plant cost down?

In the US, we have public utilities or mechant power producers who have to go to the capital markets. The reason for the government loan guarantees is that the utilities could not get financing from the financial markets.
That's curious. Do you have a source for that? I would think the case more likely is that the utility could get financing, but just not at a rate acceptable to them.

[...]The Chinese government can also accept less stingent safety standards since they are will to accept the loss of life that would be unacceptable in the US (unless one lives in New Orleans ).
I agree, and I support a higher safety standard. However I'm far from convinced that standards and regulatory environments imposed by the US bureaucracy are all supportable on the basis of safety, versus bureaucratic inertia.

And the Chinese people cannot sue the government or companies they way its done in the US.
Again because of the legal system imposed by the US government in the last ~century or so.
Astronuc
#267
Nov3-10, 09:27 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
What does this have to do keeping plant cost down?
Low financing costs, low overhead down the supply chain, and they subsidize their industries. Also, the average person in China (per capita GDP ~ $3,744 (World Bank)) has a lower standard of living than the average person in the US (per capita GDP ~ $46,436 (World Bank)).

That's curious. Do you have a source for that? I would think the case more likely is that the utility could get financing, but just not at a rate acceptable to them.
Just what I hear in the industry, but I'll try to get more information from the appropriate sources.

Again because of the legal system imposed by the US government in the last ~century or so.
And there is a good reason for that. Corporations used to make unsafe (harmful) products or provide unsafe (harmful) working conditions. Over time, the role of government has evolved to protect the consumer and worker, which is consistent with " . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, . . . , promote the general Welfare, . . . ." BTW - the "people" elected the governments that determined those policies.
mheslep
#268
Nov3-10, 09:30 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
.

Which two nuclear reactors? Usually the government has a very good reason not to issue a license. There are two sites under construction - South Texas and Vogtle. The rest are either slowly moving along or have been suspended or deferred for various reasons.
I think he means historically - Byron for at least one of them. License refused in 1984 after 9 years of construction. License eventually granted; the delay no doubt cost a fortune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_N...rating_Station
mheslep
#269
Nov3-10, 09:41 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Low financing costs, low overhead down the supply chain, and they subsidize their industries. Also, the average person in China (per capita GDP ~ $3,744 (World Bank)) has a lower standard of living than the average person in the US (per capita GDP ~ $46,436 (World Bank)).
??? I don't follow how that all connects to being "flush with cash"? Anyway ...
And there is a good reason for that. Corporations used to make unsafe (harmful) products or provide unsafe (harmful) working conditions.
Corporations? All kinds of business entities, including mom&pop shops have made unsafe products, and they still do, though not as much. I think you'd find it hard to prove the US version of government regulation is responsible for all of that improvement.

Over time, the role of government has evolved to protect the consumer and worker,
Again, I think you'd find it hard to prove that it actually does those things.
which is consistent with " . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, . . . , promote the general Welfare, . . . ."
So are many things. Like, for instance, having access to inexpensive, clean energy, which allows those with out means a chance to prosper.
BTW - the "people" elected the governments that determined those policies.
Yes, unfortunately that does not mean "people" desired everything those governments have done, or certainly not as much as the trial lawyers desired it.
joelupchurch
#270
Nov3-10, 11:45 PM
P: 149
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Which two nuclear reactors? Usually the government has a very good reason not to issue a license. There are two sites under construction - South Texas and Vogtle. The rest are either slowly moving along or have been suspended or deferred for various reasons.
The infamous case was Shoreham. It was complete, but it couldn't get an operating license because Governor Mario Cuomo wouldn't sign off on a Emergency Evacuation Plan. Governor Dukakis used similar tactics to keep Seabrook from opening for years. The delays drove the major shareholder of the plant into bankruptcy.

It doesn't look like the apple falls far from the tree. Governor Elect Andrew Cuomo has been trying to get Indian Point shut down by getting their environmental permits revoked.


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