Type of Reactors going to be built?

[B.PRESGROVE]

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.

[jgpwest]

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.

[Fermi2]

Really, where exactly has PBMR Technology been proven?

IIRC ABWR is Next Gen too.

Mike

[Fermi2]

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

[B.PRESGROVE]

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...... it should have stayed on the paper it was drawn on.   

[hamsamich]

proven is a broad word, used differently by many people. here we go mincing words again. well how about "provides evidence for commercial success"?

[B.PRESGROVE]

That sounds like a sound idea.

[Fermi2]

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

[B.PRESGROVE]

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.