Best New Reactor Design

[ddm502001]

All readers, you need to see the abhorant piece of work; the EPR from Areva.  Go to AREVA EPR and view thru the files to the vid and photo sections.  Reminders of 'the day' are ever present and if they do start building these in the US we could see a repeat of SATSOP and Midland to name a couple.

This plant design is not GEN III, it is the same old tired seventies nuke we all are used to as a PWR, someone needs to take some initiatve and stop them.  Less pumps? Less Valves? how with four safety trains and four safety diesels as well as two non safety. The faster build for ESBWR and the AP 600-1000 units will revive our industry, this "Robust" megalithic monument to our Navy leadership could end up as our industry's demise.

Olkiluoto 3 is being built in Finland and is a EPR, it started in 04/2004, they are just now pouring the can walls.  Six+, maybe 7-8 years construct time given the inevitable problems and less than 4 years for either the ESBWR or the APs', the proof is in the product or for us the production(of MW).

old coot

[Rennhack]

No agenda there, eh?

[ddm502001]

Not an agenda, just common sense.  The longer the build time the more apt to be addressed by public opinion as 'bad', also the longer build gives an open to cost overruns by changing economic conditions, remember the Reagan years of 20% interest rates?

If we can build a good partnership with the public AND decrease CO2 deposition in our atmosphere in a 'reasonable' time frame we could see a resurgence in our industry to rival the sixties.

Bigger, more armored, more delivered MW, for what tradeoffs, too long to build, monstrous for day to day surveilances, potential for a 'negative' public opinion built on the fact this new design is more aircraft attack resistant. I mean, come on, if a aircraft attack is that imminent on Nuclear sites then just don't build them, and this is an opinion of my neighbors and friends.  Oh and 1600mw dump on a trip could be too much strain on grid lines.  To me, the plant is like asking congress to allocate money to build nuke powered 'Montana' class battleships as they are bigger, more armored, and more 'impressive' than the Burke class destroyers we currently have built.

Getting AP 600-1000s' or ABWR's or ESBWR's built in 3-4 years is the answer.  Prove to our public that we can build in a reasonable time frame and build 'Safe' plants as determined by NRC guidelines, but NOT get stupid and go for broke on more monuments to the futility of mans' ego and paranoia.

old coot

[ChiefRocscooter]

Ok since you mentioned it
                                       1980    1985   1990   1995   2000   2001    2002
Federal funds, effective rate 13.35% 8.10% 8.10% 5.83% 6.24% 3.88% 1.67%
Prime rate charged by banks 15.26    9.93   10.01   8.83   9.23    6.91    4.67

Not show was that it went from 7% to almost 17% under Carter!! for 1976 to 1980
So It was Carters intrest rate problem that we are talking about (boy he did good thing for nuke power did'nt he!) And as a side not you will she that thru the 90's Clinton managed to hold the line on rates (well they did go up a bit while Ronnie managed to cut them in half in his eight years!)

Ok we now resume our more informed regular brodcast!

[ddm502001]

And the rest of my retort gets no attention?

old coot

[ChiefRocscooter]

Well you started on a false premise so I had to correct that

As for the rest I would not be so bold as to think I know enough about the "Big" picture in civ world to make rational statements about what you are suggesting  I will leave that to those more knowledgable of current plants and design/construction practices.

[Roll Tide]

And the rest of my retort gets no attention?

old coot

I can give you a hearty AMEN on most of what you wrote. AP1000 should IMHO be the new standard. An ABWR is still a BWR; when you explain the difference to the public, no community that I know would prefer a BWR in their backyard.

More trains is ridiculous. That means the amount of surveillance for 1 new unit as currently employed by a current 2 unit site.

[Rennhack]

1000 MWe vs 1400 MWe

Simple math.

[Roll Tide]

1000 MWe vs 1400 MWe

Simple math.

1400 MWe from an undesirable neighbor vs. 1000 MWe from a more desirable neighbor. FP&L even has switchyards andpower plants disguised as subdivisions and condos. When the simple math isn't politically expedient, it won't work.

[ddm502001]

Based on discussion from Westinghouse and inplant engineering, AP or ESBWR either could be completed in three+ years from actual start.  No need to do the EPR for six to seven. as two AP's could be concurrently built making 2000mw as opposed to 1400 same time frame.

As to the four safety trains, the NRC hasn't completely bought off on allowing one or possibly two out of service for extended durations as taken by some managers.  That would mean keeping them all operable ALL of mode 1 time.  (Region 4 rep input)This would make the EPR an undesireable mess if not job security for some.

Sorry for the exaggerated interest level, but in the 80's I was paying almost 17% on a home loan, and Reagan took quite a few shots for his stay in the white house during my plants coming of age.

As to the civ world, well I came to nuke power from the civ world late in life and have no Navy time.  My contacts in the 'real' world or civvy area are plentiful as well as opinionated so I take their input accordingly.

old coot

[M1Ark]

I can give you a hearty AMEN on most of what you wrote. AP1000 should IMHO be the new standard. An ABWR is still a BWR; when you explain the difference to the public, no community that I know would prefer a BWR in their backyard.

More trains is ridiculous. That means the amount of surveillance for 1 new unit as currently employed by a current 2 unit site.

The community you know would pick a BWR when you tell them it's inherently safer and present them with inteligent point counter-point from someone who knows both designs. 

Make sure you phrase your rebutal with known facts.

[Fermi2]

I'm curious as to why they wouldn't want a BWR in their back yard?

Mike

[M1Ark]

Fermi has 4 trains and is a single unit 1200 MWe plant.  That means 4 LPSI, 4 CS, 4 4160v safety busses and 4 EDG's.  They operate under the division concept with 2 trains per division. When I read the EPR safety system design it reminded me of how Fermi is designed.  Also,  you cannot take any of the components out of service for an extended lenght of time.  You need all trains and all safety systems operable to meet the LCO in Mode 1 operation.  I believe other plants employ this same concept of 4 trains.  I originally thought this was due to the size of the core.  I'm not sure if that's true (<1000 MWe = 2 trains with a swing train.  >1000MWe = 4 trains).  Anybody know of other plants having 4 trains that is currently in operation?

[Nuclear NASCAR]

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't South Texas or Comanche Peak have 3 safety trains? 

[Roll Tide]

I'm curious as to why they wouldn't want a BWR in their back yard?

Mike

ALARA
Compare release rates to the public and dose to workers.

[Roll Tide]

The community you know would pick a BWR when you tell them it's inherently safer and present them with inteligent point counter-point from someone who knows both designs. 

Make sure you phrase your rebutal with known facts.

I have seen no indications that ABWR is inherently safer than AP1000. Show me.

Until then, I will consider it a choice of dollars over dose (more MW but more Rem). I am glad I won't have to sit in a meeting at Northeast Community College (Rainsville, AL) or Scottsboro (AL) High School auditorium and defend an ABWR choice for Bellefonte.

[Fermi2]

ALARA
Compare release rates to the public and dose to workers.

If you're talking Gaseous release the release rate at most BWRs is roughly the same as at a PWR. Liquid releases are not even close as most BWRs never have to release liquid to the environment.

As for dose, hmmmm, I can tell you this, the BWR I came from had far lower doses than the PWR at which I currently work, and we never came near the total dose that I've seen in two outages here. I get more dose in an Aux Building tour than I'd get in a week of reactor building tours at my old BWR.

If you pop a fuel rod at a BWR its not all that major and doesn't effect outage dose rates like in a PWR.

The ABWR has no piping below core level, and as for Emergency Operation I'd take a BWR over a PWR under most circumstances. Having about an adundance of ways to determine reactor water level over the core is a darn nice thing!!.


I'm of the same opinion as M1Ark, if you haven't operated or been trained on both types you cannot make a reasonable comparison.

Operationally I like Westinghouse 4 Loop PWRs as they are simple and easy to understand. I believe if you look into the historical top performers in the world they tend to be large Westinghouse Reactors.


Mike

[Fermi2]

Technically if you read a BWR 4 UFSAR and the DBDs there aren't 4 trains of LP ECCS. There are two trains which operate under different regimes for 4 total subsystems. The UFSAR only takes credit for each subsystem under certain circumstances but it in fact calls one divsion of RHR and one of Core Spray a single train. In fact, under the BWR Analysis for Fermi there's only really a 1.5 trains as the LOCA Analysis credits the need for 3 of the 4 RHR Pumps.

The biggest weakness of a BWR 4 and below is the HP ECCS. Given there's only one real train of injection I always thought having a system that would automatically blow down the reactor by creating a bigger leak was hokey at best.

Mike

[M1Ark]

Mike,

I fully understand what you are saying.  The term train isn't really discussed under Fermi UFSAR.  Neither is the term division in my current plants UFSAR.  I'm just saying the structure of Fermi's ECCS would be considered as having 4 trains by operators and engineers at my current plant.  Fermi has as many EDG's and ECCS pumps as my two unit plant producing 1800 MWe.  Also,  each of Fermi's pumps are at least twice as big. (~10,000 gpm total ECCS flow per rx vs. ~ 80,000 gpm total ECCS flow)

Areva's EPR ECCS reminds me of Fermi's ECCS.

M1Ark

[M1Ark]

I have seen no indications that ABWR is inherently safer than AP1000. Show me.

Until then, I will consider it a choice of dollars over dose (more MW but more Rem). I am glad I won't have to sit in a meeting at Northeast Community College (Rainsville, AL) or Scottsboro (AL) High School auditorium and defend an ABWR choice for Bellefonte.

Current BWR's are designed for 10 minutes of no operator action  and the new BWR's are designed for 3 hours of no operator action during a DBA accident.

Roll Tide,

I could go on and on with specific details but until you get a BWR license it would be pointless.  Forgive my lack of patience... I have a small pet peeve about people speaking about subjects they know little about.

Both reactor designs are safe.  I take professional exception to your comment of your community not wanting a BWR in their backyard.

FPL will probably build a couple of the French Areva EPR's in South Florida.  I wished it was an AP1000 or the ABWR/ESBWR.  Either of the American designs would be better IMHO. 

[Fermi2]

Your point well taken M1Ark. I remember the first time I used the word Division here and I got that blank look, then the laughter when I was told I'm in the real reactor world now LOL. (Imagine the hilarity when I instructed an operator to trip and isolate recirc pumps on a seal failure!) One thing that really baffles me is with SO much ECCS Flow available in a BWR why taking out an LP ECCS Pump was so limiting, YET when HPCI was Inoperable I could take credit for RCIC for a period of time, even though it was 10% the flow of HPCI. Another thing I find strange is in a Westinghouse PWR part of ECCS System Operability is based on being able to line up Sump Recirc to the High Pressure Pump, yet none of it occurs automatically (with the exception of the suction line up to RHR).

My opinion is building an EPR is a mistake. Granted it has 4 trains but why choose what in my mind is a status quo design when you can get an ESBWR or AP1000 or even an ABWR all of which are really at least .5 generations ahead of the EPR.

The first 10 minutes of a Reactor Trip in a PWR are FAR more hectic than in a BWR. There's really one immediate action in a BWR which is to verify the trip. Then usually no one talks for at least a minute while the plant is assessed and the SRO gets out the EOP. No safety systems start, nothing really repositions except a the Control Rods and the feed system lining up for post trip feed.

I'd have no problem with either type of reactor being built anywhere near my house.

Mike

[Kernwerker]

[ no community that I know would prefer a BWR in their backyard.

[/quote]

I am surprsed that the public in the States actually "do" know the difference between a PWR and BWR. Here in Germany its a different story, nuke is nuke so its bad that simple.

[Kernwerker]

if you look into the historical top performers in the world they tend to be large Westinghouse Reactors.


Mike

[/quote]

Woaa is this some kind of PR Website for US nukes? Well the top 10 nuclear reactors in performance with one or two exceptions (I think it was Dresden) are all from Germany.
All of the 1400 MWe 4 loop PWR's that where built in Germany are under the top 10 in the World in performance

[Marlin]

I am surprsed that the public in the States actually "do" know the difference between a PWR and BWR. Here in Germany its a different story, nuke is nuke so its bad that simple.

They don't typically know the difference. Normally they are happy that thier tax base is high, or are NIMBY (not in my back yard).

[Marlin]

Woaa is this some kind of PR Website for US nukes? Well the top 10 nuclear reactors in performance with one or two exceptions (I think it was Dresden) are all from Germany.
All of the 1400 MWe 4 loop PWR's that where built in Germany are under the top 10 in the World in performance

Karma point your way for civic pride.