Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 19, 2018 8:23 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Jul 15, 2009 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 12, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 57
This sounds bad:
Quote:
$26B cost killed nuclear bid

The Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only "compliant" one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.

Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.

It means a single project would have wiped out the province's nuclear-power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.

...

AECL's $26 billion bid was based on the construction of two 1,200-megawatt Advanced Candu Reactors, working out to $10,800 per kilowatt of power capacity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 15, 2009 10:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
And we are surprised because?

Why in God's name does AECL want to try and compete with everyone else in the big reactor market, and why would anyone think Ontario would buy a pig-in-a-poke to begin with.

Darlington needs Enhanced CANDU 6 units built there, four of them, two now, two latter. Well proven designs that can be built off the shelf, that everyone is familiar with. Everyone else in the world wants them, because they are a good product.

AECL (or whoever winds up with the reactor division) had better realize that we have a market in the 600-700MWe mid-size reactor class almost to ourselves, and if they had any brains they would offer a 200-300MWe low end model as well. CANDUS are the Poor Man's reactor and that is where we should be developing customers, before India eats our lunch.

Leave the megawatt-plus installations to the others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 15, 2009 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3383
Location: Alabama
Quote:
AECL's $26 billion bid was based on the construction of two 1,200-megawatt Advanced Candu Reactors, working out to $10,800 per kilowatt of power capacity.


My goodness, what made them think that they would have a buyer for this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 15, 2009 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
My goodness, what made them think that they would have a buyer for this?


Now you see why this Crown Corporation has to get broken up and sold - total disconnect from reality at the top.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 16, 2009 5:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1954
Location: Montreal
DV82XL wrote:
Now you see why this Crown Corporation has to get broken up and sold - total disconnect from reality at the top.

"the top" is mostly politically appointed outsiders, with little or no knowledge of nukes, going in....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 16, 2009 5:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2230
Bill wrote:
This sounds bad:
Quote:
$26B cost killed nuclear bid

The Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only "compliant" one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.

Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.

It means a single project would have wiped out the province's nuclear-power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.
AECL's $26 billion bid was based on the construction of two 1,200-megawatt Advanced Candu Reactors, working out to $10,800 per kilowatt of power capacity.

Hey! Why dont they buy cheap Indian stuff? Costs one order of magnitude lower. They could pay in Yellowcake! Kazakhstan is considering it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 16, 2009 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1954
Location: Montreal
jagdish wrote:
Hey! Why dont they buy cheap Indian stuff? Costs one order of magnitude lower. They could pay in Yellowcake! Kazakhstan is considering it.

Why didn't NPCIL bid on the project ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 16, 2009 7:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
jaro wrote:
Why didn't NPCIL bid on the project ?


Their only offering is a 220MWe unit at the moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 16, 2009 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2230
jaro wrote:
jagdish wrote:
Hey! Why dont they buy cheap Indian stuff? Costs one order of magnitude lower. They could pay in Yellowcake! Kazakhstan is considering it.

Why didn't NPCIL bid on the project ?

They could ask for bids now that they did not like the one recieved.
DV82XL wrote:
jaro wrote:
Why didn't NPCIL bid on the project ?


Their only offering is a 220MWe unit at the moment.

The forum is full of posts praising small reactors. Put up as many as you want as they are cost effective.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 17, 2009 11:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Oct 16, 2007 4:29 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Canada
I have no knowledge of the bid, or even if the number quoted is correct. But, it's interesting to note that AECL's bid was the only bid that was compliant in carrying the risk. None of the other players were willing to meet the terms requested (at any price, it seems). We all know by now that you carry risk at your peril if you're not getting paid to carry it, .....

-Gary


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 17, 2009 11:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
Gary wrote:
I have no knowledge of the bid, or even if the number quoted is correct. But, it's interesting to note that AECL's bid was the only bid that was compliant in carrying the risk. None of the other players were willing to meet the terms requested (at any price, it seems). We all know by now that you carry risk at your peril if you're not getting paid to carry it, .....

-Gary


The problem is the financial risk in Canada when building a nuclear plant is largely due to a crappy regulator that can be played like a fiddle by antinuclear interests. I don't blame anyone looking to make a profit for not wanting to pick up the tab for that. AECL believed that one way or the other they were going to covered by the government.

Anyway the whole process of having others bid for this project was a sham to begin with. Too many jobs in Ontario depend on AECL and CANDU construction for the Provence to go offshore for this project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 18, 2009 12:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2230
DV82XL wrote:

The problem is the financial risk in Canada when building a nuclear plant is largely due to a crappy regulator that can be played like a fiddle by antinuclear interests. I don't blame anyone looking to make a profit for not wanting to pick up the tab for that. AECL believed that one way or the other they were going to covered by the government.

Anyway the whole process of having others bid for this project was a sham to begin with. Too many jobs in Ontario depend on AECL and CANDU construction for the Provence to go offshore for this project.

Looks like costs due to regulation and not the actual cost of construction killed the Nuclear Power project. A major victory for anti-nukes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 18, 2009 12:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
jagdish wrote:
Looks like costs due to regulation and not the actual cost of construction killed the Nuclear Power project. A major victory for anti-nukes.


Not really, that has been dealt with in the past, but it would give any outside firm pause.

The real reason the project was too dear was that it also included the development costs for the ACR1000, a reactor as I have said, we should not be building.

I'm convinced that CANDU 6 units could have been built instead successfully


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 18, 2009 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1954
Location: Montreal
DV82XL wrote:
The real reason the project was too dear was that it also included the development costs for the ACR1000, a reactor as I have said, we should not be building.

The ACR-1000 was supposed to be cheaper, per unit of installed capacity, than CANDU-6 reactors, due to a much reduced D2O inventory (no D2O in the PHT circuit, and tighter fuel channel lattice, to squeeze more fuel channels into a small calandria.... both made possible by the use of SEU, ~2%U235).
Its ~1200MWe power rating was also supposed to take advantage of the "economies of scale" -- like France's 1600MWe EPR.

I don't know that the bid price "included the development costs" -- are you absolutely sure of that ?
Certainly, if true, one would expect the FOAK to cost much more than the Nth unit.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 18, 2009 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
jaro wrote:
I don't know that the bid price "included the development costs" -- are you absolutely sure of that ?
Certainly, if true, one would expect the FOAK to cost much more than the Nth unit.....


There are certain development costs that will have to be assumed by the first unit that they build, from what I understand some features of the design are not yet complete. Certainly you are right that its not the full cost of development that is being incorporated in the build.

At any rate it's an unproven design - do we really need another Gentilly-1 fiasco?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group