Political and engineering incompentence screwing nuclear power

[Darth Tanner]

Regards naval reactors there are some rather significant differences... the Nimitz class of reactor for instance is a A4w, it only generates 100MW electrical and is only designed to last 20 years before total replacement. Areva EPR reactors in comparison generate 1650MW electrical and are expected to last atleast 40 years... and then another 20 years after some significant but not complete retrofitting.

The main problem with Hinkley atleast are financial, EDF simply lacks the money to be building it, finishing all their other projects, buying Areva out of its bankruptcy and extending the Frecnh nuclear flet all at the same time.

In good news however Taishan compelted its cold tests and is on schedule to start full power generation either later this year or early next year.

For the UK as well all these problems are solely to do with the EPR EDF plan, AP1000 will shortly get GDA approval and can likely get online before Hinkely is oeprational. The ABWR from Hitachi is also entering GDA process now so that design will also be available in a few year.

[Zeropoint]

To clarify, the reactor CORE is designed to last 20 (or more) years. Replacing the core is a bit of an undertaking, but that's mostly because of how it's inside a ship. Secondly, the reactor puts out 550 MW of steam power--the reason it "only" generates 100MW of electrical power is that the other 450MW go to the shafts. To my knowledge, civilian land-based power plants do not have screw shafts, and therefore all the steam can go to turning turbine-generators.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Cost overruns incurred as a result of neglecting due diligence. There is a difference. You can still do everything right and get cost overruns, but if you neglect something as basic as finding out what the regulations are and don't build up to spec, then yes, there is no reason to not have the builder eat the cost.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but "eating the cost" and charging someone with breach of contract are different things, are they not? It's one thing to insist that the builder cover the costs due to their negligence, it is another to charge them with breach of contract, which completely halts all construction and mires the project in legal issues for years to come.

[Lord Revan]

Cost overruns incurred as a result of neglecting due diligence. There is a difference. You can still do everything right and get cost overruns, but if you neglect something as basic as finding out what the regulations are and don't build up to spec, then yes, there is no reason to not have the builder eat the cost.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but "eating the cost" and charging someone with breach of contract are different things, are they not? It's one thing to insist that the builder cover the costs due to their negligence, it is another to charge them with breach of contract, which completely halts all construction and mires the project in legal issues for years to come.

why do you think that project that was slated to complete in 2009 isn't still not done.

Oh btw STUK the finnish govermental Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority had stated that were issues with safety of the construction and paperwork of reactor 3, basically things were not up to local regulations and STUK being a govermental agency has no ties to TVO the Company responsible for running the Olkiluoto reactor. Also if I implied that my brother worked for the for company that ran the plant I apologize I got the 2 main nuclear plants mixed up my brother used to work in the Loviisa plant.