NukeWorker Forum
Career Path => Getting in => Topic started by: B.PRESGROVE on Aug 05, 2007, 04:55
-
Does anyone know what type of reactors are going to be built at Vogtle and TVA?
-
Well the reactor that TVA has actually announced BUILDING is a Westinghouse 4 Loop with an Ice Condenser Containment. Haven't you been reading the board?
Mike
-
Well the reactor that TVA has actually announced BUILDING is a Westinghouse 4 Loop with an Ice Condenser Containment. Haven't you been reading the board?
Mike
Yep, we get all the free shaved ice and snow cones we want!! Good stuff! ;)
-
With Borax for added whitening!
-
Thanks for half the info, and Ive been reading some of the boards not all of them, I will endever to do better. :-*
-
Thanks for half the info, and Ive been reading some of the boards not all of them, I will endever to do better. :-*
Constellation is partnered with Areva and Bechtel to build a EPR. Looking at Calvert for Units 3 and 4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor
-
Constellation is partnered with Areva and Bechtel to build a EPR. Looking at Calvert for Units 3 and 4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor
Wikipedia is the intentional dumbing down of the masses.
I wonder why Constellation would choose a design of which the NRC hasn' started the review.
Mike
-
Please, Please, Please, Please forgive my lack of knowledge on this subject. ??? I have been reading the thread about reactor design and have garnished some information through yalls very informative discussion. I am curious why having 4 trains is bad. Isnt having those 4 better than 2 or 3 due to safety? Again I am so ignorant on this subject. And is it possible that this new / old design that they say has less of mean that there is less hands on by operations? Just curious cause I didnt see that question brought up in the discussion.
Be gental I m still learning.
-
Wikipedia is the intentional dumbing down of the masses.
I wonder why Constellation would choose a design of which the NRC hasn' started the review.
Mike
Like I'm trying to present a technical review here, Mike.
-
4 Trains is exceptionally good especially since the accident Analysis supports 3 trains so taking one out for maintenance doesn't put you under any LCO Time Constraints.
Mike
-
Ok, so why are the EPR reactors looked down on. I saw in another thread where they are compared to a throw back to the 70's style reactors and there were two places mentioned, I guess accidents happened there? In yalls humble opinion which type of reactors would be the best to build?
-
Because EPR are from the old style of thinking where safety features are active, ie pumps have to start, valves have to stroke, items like that. The next Gen Reactors rely on more passive systems such as accumulators and the laws of physics to perform safety functions. This means less piping, less wired and more important less connections to the reactor.
Given there's operating experience with only one type of Advanced Reactor that being the ABWR I guess I'd give it the nod. Theoretically the Westinghouse AP 1000 and ESBWR would be just as good if not better.
Mike
-
Per the NRC's web page on new reactors ( http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor-licensing.html ), TVA is planning on building 2 AP1000's at Bellefonte. Vogtle is also getting 2 AP1000's.
-
The only new units planned to be ABWR's (so far) are South Texas 3 and 4.
Two 4 loop Westinghouse units and two ABWR's. ::)
-
Because EPR are from the old style of thinking where safety features are active, ie pumps have to start, valves have to stroke, items like that. The next Gen Reactors rely on more passive systems such as accumulators and the laws of physics to perform safety functions. This means less piping, less wired and more important less connections to the reactor.
Or, you could put the spin on it that the EPR is 'proven & tested technology'...?
Disclosure: My current contract is with an AREVA subsidiary, so...
-
All of this doesn't mean squat until I see anything put a single watt on a grid.
-
Has the wait and disappointments been that long that no one is looking forward to seeing the promise of new builds? ??? I just heard on the radio here in GA that we are setting all kinds of new records for heat and the power demand is the most EVER!! :o I am looking forward to the new construction. I dont think we need to worry about the next administration that comes around because there is so much demand they can have to address it. Yah we will get the new reactors the only problem is can we man them with the looming worker shortage?
-
There isn't a looming skilled worker shortage, it is upon us now. You will see more joint venture work in trying to build new reactors, PWR or BWR.
-
they will be manned, one way or another....you just may not like the "new" looks of things when you are stuck on the refuel floor for 9 hours straight. recently, more than once and at more than one plant I've done 7+ hour jumps, and not just because we didn't have enough people, the quality of the people I was working with made them tenative to come in and relieve, especially when it was going to be just them all by their lonesome. confident, good technicians are fairly hard to come by these days, or so it seems. I like to contract so I will probably keep working under these conditions, but I don't know so many others who would do that.
-
they will be manned, one way or another....you just may not like the "new" looks of things when you are stuck on the refuel floor for 9 hours straight. recently, more than once and at more than one plant I've done 7+ hour jumps, and not just because we didn't have enough people, the quality of the people I was working with made them tenative to come in and relieve, especially when it was going to be just them all by their lonesome. confident, good technicians are fairly hard to come by these days, or so it seems. I like to contract so I will probably keep working under these conditions, but I don't know so many others who would do that.
I like to contract, too, so all I can say is... PLEASE don't tolerate that. Stop the jobs and walk out of containment after a reasonable time, or if 'nature calls.' Call for relief when you need it. Make sure that the supervisors know you are are coming out and then if there is no one to relieve you, make the work stop. That is the only way that things will get any better. The utility will abuse you any way that you will tolerate and then that will become the norm. More than 3 or 4 hours in a confined area where you cannot take a break is NOT ok. Yes, you may get some grief over it and some people may actually lose a job over it, but you are hanging yourself and the rest of us if you tolerate 6 or 7 hour jumps. If you are a good worker and not always complaining about having to work for your money the likelihood that you will get terminated is low. It is UNSAFE for you and the workers you are providing coverage for to work in an environment like a containment for that long without the opportunity to rest and 'recharge' (or empty.) The workers are all getting their breaks as are the supervisors. For the sake of all of us and the people we are supposed to be protecting, DO NOT tolerate working without a break no matter how short staffed you are. Things will not get better until we make them better and if we tolerate 5 hours it will become 7 and if we tolerate that it will become 9. The shortage is not our fault and we should not be the ones bearing the burden. I have no problem with doing my share of the work, but I do have several problems with doing the share of the person that was not hired to relieve me.
PLEASE don't do it.
-
you're right, I've actually been thinking about it, and next time, depending on the situation, I probably will just go after calling for help and getting none. I don't mind working all 12 hours, unlike some techs, but I need to eat once and i need to use bathroom. I guess it is hard to adjust your expectations even after being out of the Navy for 11 long years, because no matter how bad it gets, nothing will even come close to what the Navy had to throw at me. maybe the next "type of reactor" will have a potty next to the pool. It's funny how so much hinges on one guy making 25 bucks an hour and is "just an HP". You almost turn into the containment supervisor/refuel supervisor; everything starts going thru you and you can have alot to do with getting things done right and getting the outage done on time, saving the company hundreds of thousands of dollars, and costing you hundreds of dollars because you will probably get laid off earlier since the outage is getting done! funny isn't it?
-
iffen yinz gotta work dat long with out relief for internal relief, then i'd be taking extra shoe covers or bags into da can wit me. let da radwaste management deal with watt rolls downhill from da containment management. ;)
-
Ya know I have to agree with all of yall, bbbbuuuutttttttt, I also have to say that if you have incompetant workers then what are you going to do? Just from my 7 short years in the nuke industry and 5 years in the chemical industry there are times when you have to bite the bullet, and stay in the extra time because the folks that would relieve ya are scary :o. Ive done my fair share of long hours even a few 14 - 16 hour days, but when its all over at least you know it is done right and put that job to bed.
-
stay in the extra time because the folks that would relieve ya are scary :o.
i'd say it wood be far better to git ona phone immediately 'n make positive da supervisor reely wants that "scary" person on that job. if he is ok with that, then it's time to vacate da can 'n vacate ones internals 'n fill 'em back up agin.
-
Ok, so why are the EPR reactors looked down on. I saw in another thread where they are compared to a throw back to the 70's style reactors and there were two places mentioned, I guess accidents happened there? In yalls humble opinion which type of reactors would be the best to build?
Im a big fan of the ap1000 from the information ive read on it but i could be biased
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/index.shtm
-
Ive been reading alot lately about the AP1000 reactors and really like what Im seeing so far. I have to remind though that my knowledge is a little (ok alot limited due to lack of experience), but it looks good. The old saying goes that the fewer moving parts the less worry of breaking when its running. I would guess this holds true with this type of reactor? ??? I just hope that I get a call soon for that ops job Im wanting. 8)
-
According to the ANS, the EPR, the ESBWR, the PBMR, the Toshiba 4S, the MHIPWR are all at the NRC awaiting review. In-fact the EPR went through a design change to incorporate more passive safety systems. The AP-1000 is still the only Gen III reactor approved for use. There is a lot of competition now worldwide since Westinghouse signed the contract to build 4 AP1000 plants, but I don't expect any US Utilities to bite the bullet until they see how the 1st one goes. Nobody wants to be the guinea pig on this.
Personally I like the PBMR, but that's just my opinion.....and yes this is proven technology.
-
Really, where exactly has PBMR Technology been proven?
IIRC ABWR is Next Gen too.
Mike
-
From an engineering standpoint it isn't proven until it's used large scale commercially and successfully.
Technically even Nuclear wasn't considered Proven until the 1990s.
Mike
-
Regarding TMI, it was a proven system, and the safety system went even further to prove that it worked and worked like it was suppose to. Chernobyl was a different story wasnt it? I have to agree that its not proven until it is up and running with everything going like it is suppose to. Ive done my fair share of startups on different projects, and it looked good on paper but once it was going...... :D it should have stayed on the paper it was drawn on. ;)
-
proven is a broad word, used differently by many people. here we go mincing words again. well how about "provides evidence for commercial success"?
-
That sounds like a sound idea. ;)
-
Because that's not how the word proven is used in the engineering world.
Also back to TMI, absolutely nothing happened that the plants systems should not have been able to handle. Poor training and procedures doomed that plant, not the design itself. What happened to TMI 2 had nothing to do with whether the technology was proven or not.
Mike
-
That is a very valid point you made there. As a matter of fact isnt that how most things are made better? Like how we deconstructed German stuff to see how it worked then made things better to compensate.