The Nuclear Power Thread

[Astronuc]

The NRC is waiting on utilities.

The ABWR and AP1000 are certified although there are some open issues.

 

[mheslep]

The NRC is waiting on utilities.

Eh? Waiting on them for what? The power companies submitted the applications for the 17 of these plants years ago.

 

[Astronuc]

Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html

Three big utilities, Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp., on Wednesday signed an agreement with McDermott International Inc.'s Babcock & Wilcox subsidiary, committing to get the new reactor approved for commercial use in the U.S.

Although none have agreed to buy a reactor, the utilities' commitment should help build momentum behind the technology and hasten its adoption across the industry. It's a crucial first step toward getting the reactor design certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Early support from the three utilities, and four others that are mulling the agreement, increases the odds that customers will come forward in the future.
. . . .
"We see significant benefits from the new, modular technology," said Donald Moul, vice president of nuclear support for First Energy, an Ohio-based utility company.

He said First Energy, which operates four reactors at three sites in Ohio and Pennsylvania, has made no decision to build any new reactor and noted there's "a lot of heavy lifting to do to get this reactor certified" by the NRC for U.S. use.
. . . .

 

[mheslep]

Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html

The small reactor idea makes so much sense on so many levels, perhaps the most promising is the reduction of regulatory problems.

• The B&W reactor would be built at the factory by one company, so the NRC can focus its attention there, and pay less attention to the construction process of every site contractor as there is at the large reactor projects.
• It is underground. I forget at the moment, but decades ago one of the icons of nuclear physics said commercial reactors should probably be buried. Finally. Burial should reduce the requirements of the containment structure, and ease public fears.
• On site, inside the containment structure storage of waste and new fuel reduces maintenance, and reduces much of the to/from transport of fuel/waste. Relieves the pressure of the waste issue until better approaches are found.
• Small size equals smaller cost, so no more bankrupt nuclear utilities leaving the public holding the bag.
• No water supply required.

I certainly hope it receives due attention.

 

[DnD Addict]

If one is to ignore all external costs associated with CO2 emissions, how well does nuclear power stand up aainst more convential power sources such as coal and natural gas? I am trying to understand why there is such an overlap between AGW skeptics an pro-nuclear power people.

What kind of mining practices are needed to mine thorium? I did a quik google search but didn't come up with anything.

 

[russ_watters]

If one is to ignore all external costs associated with CO2 emissions, how well does nuclear power stand up aainst more convential power sources such as coal and natural gas?

Not well at all. Coal and natural gas are vastly cheaper than just about anything else if you don't worry about controlling the pollution.

I am trying to understand why there is such an overlap between AGW skeptics an pro-nuclear power people.

I'm not sure what overlap you're seeing, but it may just be a biproduct of radical environmentalists being the most prominent opponents of nuclear power (that's basically by definition) and essentially all radical environmentalists are AGW proponents. For the rest of the population, I'd be surprised if there is much of a corellation.

[edit] Meh, the logic may be even more basic: AGW=bad for the environment, nuclear power is perceived as bad for the environment, therefore opponents of nuclear power will tend to be proponents of AGW theory.

 

[russ_watters]

The small reactor idea makes so much sense on so many levels, perhaps the most promising is the reduction of regulatory problems.

I certainly hope it receives due attention.

The political issues with nuclear power have to be worked out first and the political issues exist on a per-reactor basis, not on a per megawatt basis, so small reactors can only become a reality after a couple of decades of utility scale reactor resurgence.

 

[DnD Addict]

It is my understanding that current nuclear plants are only good for being a base load power plant*.

What % of natural gas power plants are used for base load power? Is it a signifigant %, or will nuclear power plants have to compete more against coal then natural gas?

*With the exception of BWR's. I have not been able to find anything about the economics of BWR's. How do they stack up to convential nuclear power plants?

 

[Astronuc]

It is my understanding that current nuclear plants are only good for being a base load power plant*.

What % of natural gas power plants are used for base load power? Is it a signifigant %, or will nuclear power plants have to compete more against coal then natural gas?

*With the exception of BWR's. I have not been able to find anything about the economics of BWR's. How do they stack up to convential nuclear power plants?

Gas plants are primarily peaking units. When the price of gas surged a few years ago, they actually became uneconomical to operate.

Most BWRs in the US have gone to 24 month cycles and are generally run as baseload, and many have been uprated on the order of 15-20% of the last two decades. Large capacity units are most economical as baseload - high capacity factor.

Nuclear plants compete primarily with coal. Natural gas plants generally are more competitive in terms of capital cost, and getting them online.

 

[DnD Addict]

If nuclear power plants cannot compete with coal if one ignores external costs for CO2,NOx,SOx,etc., does nuclear have side benefits that may make it desirable anyways?

For instance, I am told Generation IV plants will be able to be use High Temperature Electrolysis. How realistic is this plan? Will this let Nucear power plants be peaking plants (by shunting excess energy during the night into HTE) ?

 

[Astronuc]

If nuclear power plants cannot compete with coal if one ignores external costs for CO2,NOx,SOx,etc., does nuclear have side benefits that may make it desirable anyways?

Part of that is the fuel costs, and O&M. The new Gen 3+ plants, at least the AP1000, is supposed to have less piping and wiring, and a smaller footprint. On the other hand, cost of steel and concrete has driven up capital costs. The thing about coal is the ash-waste with its heavy metal content. In some cases, the material is just dumped rather disposed of as hazardous waste.

For instance, I am told Generation IV plants will be able to be use High Temperature Electrolysis. How realistic is this plan? Will this let Nucear power plants be peaking plants (by shunting excess energy during the night into HTE) ?

In some Gen-IV systems, they are looking at process heat/energy, e.g., for producing hydrogen. The higher the operating temperature, the more deleterious the environment is on materials. I certainly question the 'realism' behind Gen-IV.

 

[mheslep]

The political issues with nuclear power have to be worked out first and the political issues exist on a per-reactor basis, not on a per megawatt basis,

Agreed.

so small reactors can only become a reality after a couple of decades of utility scale reactor resurgence.

Perhaps, but doesn't necessarily follow. It may be that people will much more readily accept a small reactor that is buried out of sight, couldn't do as much damage even given some fantastic failure scheme, only has to have fuel or waste transport once every 60 years (if ever after startup), and doesn't need to be sited on some prime river or lake front property. Also since the small reactor construction time is so much faster (built off site) there's less time for mischief law suits and mauling in the agenda press.

 

[mheslep]

Not well at all. Coal and natural gas are vastly cheaper than just about anything else if you don't worry about controlling the pollution...

Well in the US at least. Overseas (Asia) nuclear has been much less expensive, highlighting the political cost attached nuclear in the US. Wind power in the wind belt is more or less competitive with natural gas.

 

[gmax137]

It is my understanding that current nuclear plants are only good for being a base load power plant*.

What % of natural gas power plants are used for base load power? Is it a signifigant %, or will nuclear power plants have to compete more against coal then natural gas?

*With the exception of BWR's. I have not been able to find anything about the economics of BWR's. How do they stack up to convential nuclear power plants?

The reason units (of any type) are operated as base load is because they are the cheapest to operate at that time. Nuclear units are perfectly capable of daily load following, but the Utility companies don't operate them that way - because at any time of day or night, they are the cheapest to run (once the company has made the significant investment required to build the unit). What makes the most sense at any given moment is the operating cost, not the capital cost, which has already been spent. The reason the nuclear units have a low operating cost is that the fuel is practically free. Compared to coal or gas, the uranium fuel is very inexpensive (and cheep to transport due to the limited amount of fuel required, relative to fossil fuels). There is a factor of approximately one million there, between the energy in a pound of uranium and the energy in a pound of coal. The only fuel cheaper than uranium is the wind - and it isn't really that much cheaper.

Gas fired plants aren't run for base load - for the same reason: They are the most expensive to operate, because their fuel is so pricey. So the Utility companies turn them on last and turn them off first (that's what it means to be a peaking unit.

BWR or PWR really doesn't matter in this context.

If nuclear power plants cannot compete with coal if one ignores external costs for CO2,NOx,SOx,etc.,

Where did you get that idea? Nuclear units produce 1/5 of our electricity in the US; in fact, nuclear units are the only competition that the coal plants have (and the coal plants have traditionally been given a free pass on their external costs).

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting picture showing Cerenkov radiation comming off a BWR assembly. The blue glow is roughly proportional to the local radiation intensity.

The BWR channel is about 5.86 inches face-to-face on the outside envelope.

 

[mheslep]

Interesting picture showing Cerenkov radiation comming off a BWR assembly. The blue glow is roughly proportional to the local radiation intensity.

The BWR channel is about 5.86 inches face-to-face on the outside envelope.

Pretty. Do you have a link to a larger photo? Googling doesn't turn up anything better.

 

[Astronuc]

Pretty. Do you have a link to a larger photo? Googling doesn't turn up anything better.

Unfortunately not. I took that off a presentation. I'll look to see if I can find a larger one.

 

[Astronuc]

Regulatory History Package on Design Certification
http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=ML003761550

 

[gmax137]

Regulatory History Package on Design Certification
http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=ML003761550

That's nice - how did you do that? It looks like a search on 'design certification' I didn't know there were 'saved' searches in ADAMS. Are there others like that (say, on other subjects)?

Thanks for the link !

 

[Astronuc]

That's nice - how did you do that? It looks like a search on 'design certification' I didn't know there were 'saved' searches in ADAMS. Are there others like that (say, on other subjects)?

Thanks for the link !

I was slogging through 10 CFR, NUREG 0800, and Reg. Guides, trying better to understand the DCD (and Tier 1 and 2) requirements. I came across, SECY-92-053, "Use of Design Acceptance Criteria During 10 CFR Part 52 Design Certification Reviews", and did a search on Google for that SECY. One of the links just happened to be that page I cited. Those documents are the whole basis behind the design certification and COL process and 10 CFR 52.

There may be other saved searches, but I'm not sure how to find a specific one. It was purely fortuitous and serendipitous to find the one I did.

 

[Astronuc]

Japan Steel Works takes a lead in large forgings.

Japan Steel Works (JSW) has completed its second press for ultra-large nuclear forgings, while Rolls-Royce and Larsen & Toubro will collaborate on instrumentation.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Links_for_the_supply_chain_0104101.html

WNA list of large forging shops.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf122_heavy_manufacturing_of_power_plants.html

 

[Astronuc]

Looking down into the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) of a PWR during a refueling. The core is about 10 m (33 ft) underwater, and the glow is the Cerenkov radiation.

Now imagine trying to do measurements and inspections at 10 m. Nowadays, rad-hardened digital cameras are used. Measurements are done in the spent fuel pool with the fuel also under about 10 m of water.

A ring of studs or bolts sorrounds the opening of the PV. The tall posts are alignment posts. The upper head has to precisely align within a few mils (~ 1 mm) in order for the control elements and control rod drives to be directly over their respective fuel assemblies.

 

[alcurad]

so I have a question, why is it that nuclear reactors always use steam turbines and nothing else? at least this is how it seems to me with my limited knowledge, isn't there any more efficient way to extract the heat and turn it into electricity?

 

[gmax137]

so I have a question, why is it that nuclear reactors always use steam turbines and nothing else? at least this is how it seems to me with my limited knowledge, isn't there any more efficient way to extract the heat and turn it into electricity?

Well, first, reactors don't 'always' use steam turbines - for example, the high temperature gas cooled pebble bed design uses the gas in essentially a brayton cycle device.

Second, steam turbine plants are not lacking in thermodynamic efficiency, the modern systems are pretty efficient. They are also used in coal fired units, where the fuel costs are high enough to drive efficiency gains.

Light water reactors use steam turbine plant for a number of reasons, but the main one (in my mind anyway) is because the electric power companies (who operate the reactors) are very familiar with the steam plant design since that's what they have in their coal fired units. There are differences, but they are minor. These steam plants are very robust and well understood, which means that they can operate continuously for long periods (months or years) - and this reliability is 'worth' as much or more than thermodynamic efficiency.

The cost to the power company of an 'inefficient' cycle is that they need to buy more uranium (since less efficient means less electricity for the same amount of fuel). But the fuel cost of running a reactor is a minor contributor to the total cost, so increasing efficiency of the cycle helps, but not by as much as you might think. And that's why reliability is really more important to the power company than thermodynamic efficiency.

Finally, the temperatures in the LWR design (reactor coolant at say 600 F in a PWR) are low by comparison to the gas temperatures in a coal fired unit or in a gas turbine, so you're not going to see anything other than a water-based Rankine cycle used. But then, that may be arguing in a circle (since the operating temperatures are selected to match the steam cycle).

 

[alcurad]

thanks, that explains a lot.

But the fuel cost of running a reactor is a minor contributor to the total cost, so increasing efficiency of the cycle helps, but not by as much as you might think. And that's why reliability is really more important to the power company than thermodynamic efficiency.

so, does that mean maintenance and operation costs trump fuel costs?

 

[QuantumPion]

thanks, that explains a lot.



so, does that mean maintenance and operation costs trump fuel costs?

yes, by a large margin (triple or quadruple).

 

[mheslep]

Nice post but I think it falls short in places:

Well, first, reactors don't 'always' use steam turbines - for example, the high temperature gas cooled pebble bed design uses the gas in essentially a brayton cycle device.

True, but all existing commercial reactors in the US at least use rankine steam for the primary cycle.

Second, steam turbine plants are not lacking in thermodynamic efficiency, the modern systems are pretty efficient. They are also used in coal fired units, where the fuel costs are high enough to drive efficiency gains.

Light water reactors use steam turbine plant for a number of reasons, but the main one (in my mind anyway) is because the electric power companies (who operate the reactors) are very familiar with the steam plant design since that's what they have in their coal fired units. There are differences, but they are minor. These steam plants are very robust and well understood, which means that they can operate continuously for long periods (months or years) - and this reliability is 'worth' as much or more than thermodynamic efficiency.

Obviously electric utilities are also very familiar and comfortable with natural gas fired Brayton cycle plants. There is an alternative reason than the comfort of the nuclear operators with Rankine steam, one I assert is far more likely to be dominate: government regulators (NRC in the US) are comfortable with the nuclear Rankine designs, and so only approve those designs.

The cost to the power company of an 'inefficient' cycle is that they need to buy more uranium (since less efficient means less electricity for the same amount of fuel). But the fuel cost of running a reactor is a minor contributor to the total cost, so increasing efficiency of the cycle helps, but not by as much as you might think. And that's why reliability is really more important to the power company than thermodynamic efficiency.

True, capacity factor ranks high, but it's misleading, I think, to say reliability trumps efficiency, end of story. Per a seminar run by the CEO of nuclear operator I once attended, the number one thing utilities want to do, or rather avoid, is they do not want to build more power plants, certainly not the expensive, capital intensive plants. They want to run the ones they have as near to maximum capacity as possible. Seen this way, reliability and efficiency are both important. If a utility were to choose a fleet of inefficient plants, they will simply have to build more of them to meet demand.

 

[mheslep]

yes, by a large margin (triple or quadruple).

Er, more specifically reactor down time trumps fuel costs by a large margin, since there's no $/kWh coming in when its down, and the utility may have to pay huge penalties for failure to provide promised supply in some states.

 

[Astronuc]

KAERI - Nuclear Power Reactor Technology
http://www.kntc.re.kr/openlec/nuc/NPRT/

Fuel Design and Fabrication
http://www.kntc.re.kr/openlec/nuc/NPRT/module2/module2_4/2_4.htm

Enjoy!

 

[gmax137]

Nice post but I think it falls short in places:
...
Obviously electric utilities are also very familiar and comfortable with natural gas fired Brayton cycle plants. There is an alternative reason than the comfort of the nuclear operators with Rankine steam, one I assert is far more likely to be dominate: government regulators (NRC in the US) are comfortable with the nuclear Rankine designs, and so only approve those designs.

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).

True, capacity factor ranks high, but it's misleading, I think, to say reliability trumps efficiency, end of story.

I said, efficiency isn't as important as you might think, not "reliability trumps efficiency, end of story."

 

[mheslep]

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]

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]

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]

Meanwhile, here is Southern Company's brochure on Vogtle 3 and 4.

http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/pdf/Vogtle_3_4.pdf

 

[mheslep]

Meanwhile, here is Southern Company's brochure on Vogtle 3 and 4.

http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/pdf/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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=27662&jmid=18699&j=247171936&utm_source=JangoMail&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=WNN+Daily%3A+Another+drop+in+nuclear+generation+%28247171936%29&utm_content=dion%40anatech%2Ecom
05 May 2010

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]

"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]

Here's a surprise -

Dominion selects APWR for North Anna
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Dominion_selects_APWR_for_North_Anna-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]

Here's a surprise -

Dominion selects APWR for North Anna
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Dominion_selects_APWR_for_North_Anna-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]

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-Nuclear_excellence_centres_for_UK_universities-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]

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-Nuclear_excellence_centres_for_UK_universities-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 I've seen.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

 

[mheslep]

EDF completes UK nuclear line-up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7532542.stm
Possibly 4 EPRs.

after the government gave the go-ahead for the rebirth of the nuclear industry early this year.

Really? I'd missed that. I had thought one of the reasons behind the UK's expensive offshore wind push was because more nuclear was not on the table.

 

[mheslep]

Same article - disconcerting waste handling behavior in France

[...]A couple of recent incidents in France have made such concerns pertinent.

In July, 100 workers at EDF's Tricastin power plant in Bollene, southern France, were contaminated as waste particles escaped from a pipe during maintenance work.

Medical checks found the workers were all fine as the contamination was mild, but it nevertheless pointed to a lack of control.

And only a few weeks earlier, an adjacent Areva subsidiary failed to notify the locals until late in the afternoon the day after some 75kg of liquid containing unenriched uranium leaked into the ground water.

The leak was taken seriously. Locals were told to stop drinking tap water; swimming pools were covered up; farmers and gardeners stopped watering their crops.