Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Feb 23, 2018 11:28 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Dec 17, 2012 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1330
Location: NoOPWA
djw1 wrote:
The LPD a modest transport which would cost less
than USD 50 million if competitively bid to the world's
shipyards...
Sorry Jack, this is hogwash. The LPD17 Cl is SUPPOSED to be a WAR ship and has COMPLETELY different construction requirements. Even the "simple" act of attaching the longitudinals is made substantially more complex and expensive by the need to survive weapons effects.

I am not delighting that the LPD17 Class had, and still has, its weeping soars, but your comparison is worse than apples vs aardvarks!

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 17, 2012 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1330
Location: NoOPWA
Jack may have indirectly identified one significant reason why the costs are so high.

Large companies need to bring in a minimum set amount annually to stay in business. Indeed, when congress tried to save money by stretching the $7B CVN21 from ~7 years execution to 10, the company basically said, "now it will cost $10B".

Long execution and low rate. Build three times as many...

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 17, 2012 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 20, 2010 12:52 pm
Posts: 188
Lars wrote:
I believe the major cost overrun driver is having to do things over and delays. EPR in Finland had to do a significant amount over when they discovered the sub's did not know what they had to do for a nuclear power plant.

In the US, we've had some do overs with the rebar being more modern than what was certified. They ended up ripping out the newer (and I've heard better) rebar and installing the older certified stuff. The biggest hit on cost though is the schedule delays induced by such rework.


I think Vogtle just used stronger concrete. Not sure if the final approval has been given, but they expected it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 17, 2012 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
Speaking of labor costs.....Take a look at the number of desk top computers now in the west. In the early 1980's I would do a work order that was 1 page long. Hand drawn drawings. Now-a-days I would be lucky if the same work is not 50 pages long. Detailed step by step procedures. A computer allows every Tom, Dick or Harry to add more then his .02 worth of useless fluff. Each work order is written as if they expect it to be used in court. All it does is give feed to the auditors, in my opinion. I would guess that labor costs are increased for this type of work control more so then the direct labor rates.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 18, 2012 3:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2238
The UK have their own power and nuclear work force. The government should have encouraged them to buy hardware from anywhere, France, Japan, Russia, China or Korea and build their own power plants, making such additions or alterations as they find fit, but keeping to the safety standards required.
What they can do simultaneously is to go ahead with Prism reactors and integral reprocessing and once the reprocessing is working satisfactorily, to change over to fast spectrum molten salt reactors/waste burners. They could do the last in co-ordination with the Czechs who are very interested in molten salt work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 18, 2012 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1330
Location: NoOPWA
Ida-Russkie wrote:
Speaking of labor costs.....Take a look at the number of desk top computers now in the west. ...
Liked. :mrgreen:

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 19, 2012 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 24, 2009 4:42 am
Posts: 826
Location: Calgary, Alberta
jagdish wrote:
The UK have their own power and nuclear work force. The government should have encouraged them to buy hardware from anywhere, France, Japan, Russia, China or Korea and build their own power plants, making such additions or alterations as they find fit, but keeping to the safety standards required.
What they can do simultaneously is to go ahead with Prism reactors and integral reprocessing and once the reprocessing is working satisfactorily, to change over to fast spectrum molten salt reactors/waste burners. They could do the last in co-ordination with the Czechs who are very interested in molten salt work.

Sounds nice, but in practice this would be a risky move. I you buy bits and pieces from here and there putting it all together and hoping that it works. Then if there are problems the finger pointing begins and it becomes very difficult to get the responsible party to step up and fix the problem. Far better to require the prime EPC contractor to use a certain amount of local labour.

Re Prism, if you've seen the absolutely eye-watering costs associated with that proposal, I think that it would be cheaper to develop fast MSR's and live with the fact that it will take a little longer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 19, 2012 3:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
What Lindsay says is absolutely true, just look at recent nuclear builds that have gone this direction. The EPR at Olkiluoto being a good example.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Ol ... 07124.html

Exactly what Lindsay says has happened here, and is still happening here.

When Areva was keeping everything in house nuclear builds were going very well. Then they partner up with Siemens and everything goes south. They spend more time in court than actually solving problems together.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 19, 2012 6:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
Lindsay wrote:
jagdish wrote:
The UK have their own power and nuclear work force. The government should have encouraged them to buy hardware from anywhere, France, Japan, Russia, China or Korea and build their own power plants, making such additions or alterations as they find fit, but keeping to the safety standards required.
What they can do simultaneously is to go ahead with Prism reactors and integral reprocessing and once the reprocessing is working satisfactorily, to change over to fast spectrum molten salt reactors/waste burners. They could do the last in co-ordination with the Czechs who are very interested in molten salt work.

Sounds nice, but in practice this would be a risky move. I you buy bits and pieces from here and there putting it all together and hoping that it works. Then if there are problems the finger pointing begins and it becomes very difficult to get the responsible party to step up and fix the problem. Far better to require the prime EPC contractor to use a certain amount of local labour.

Re Prism, if you've seen the absolutely eye-watering costs associated with that proposal, I think that it would be cheaper to develop fast MSR's and live with the fact that it will take a little longer.


Building a single fluid, thermal LFTR will take much less time and still do at least as good a job as Prism. A thermal reactor will certainly burn much of the SNF/Pu but not all of it. The Pu gunk left at the end would no longer represent any threat of being dug up and used for weapons. If you did want to burn it off in a fast reactor one still could - and the volume of Pu would be greatly reduced. OR you could run your thermal LFTR on thorium and burn off little bits of your Pu gunk at a time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 19, 2012 11:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2238
Lindsay wrote:

Re Prism, if you've seen the absolutely eye-watering costs associated with that proposal, I think that it would be cheaper to develop fast MSR's and live with the fact that it will take a little longer.

I have not been able to get the cost of Prism. Is it over $6800/kW? If so, Indian ($1800/kW) or Russian fast reactors would be better. All could use British Pu stocks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 20, 2012 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
The new Flamanville delay is also a tell tale of things very wrong:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Fl ... 12127.html

How the hell can you justify spending 2000 million euros on "boiler design, additional engineering studies, and the integration of new regulatory requirements and improvements resulting from the review of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident"???

This is lunacy. Studies cost very little. Some extra diesel generators, electrical I&C, etc. isn't going to cost 2000 million euros.

We must understand what's going so bad here, because I can't get my head around these figures. These official stated reasons are smokescreen to what's really going on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 21, 2012 5:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 24, 2009 4:42 am
Posts: 826
Location: Calgary, Alberta
It's just management speak and posturing, they had cost overruns coincident with some reviews, so they just sheet home all the costs as safety related. "No one would want us to build anything less than something as safe as we can make it".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 21, 2012 9:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
Lindsay wrote:
It's just management speak and posturing, they had cost overruns coincident with some reviews, so they just sheet home all the costs as safety related. "No one would want us to build anything less than something as safe as we can make it".


Perhaps, but that begs the question again. Flamanville was initially budgeted at 3300 million euros. Now it's 8000 million euros. A 4700 million euro cost overrun, 142% higher than the initial contract.

For people in the US, this is 6200 million (6.2 billion) US cost overrun.

Can someone explain to me how you can spend 6200 million dollars on cost overruns?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 21, 2012 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 28, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 351
Cyril R wrote:
Lindsay wrote:
It's just management speak and posturing, they had cost overruns coincident with some reviews, so they just sheet home all the costs as safety related. "No one would want us to build anything less than something as safe as we can make it".


Perhaps, but that begs the question again. Flamanville was initially budgeted at 3300 million euros. Now it's 8000 million euros. A 4700 million euro cost overrun, 142% higher than the initial contract.

For people in the US, this is 6200 million (6.2 billion) US cost overrun.

Can someone explain to me how you can spend 6200 million dollars on cost overruns?



Yes, it is a mindboggling number. How many people do work at this site ? The payroll is usually the main cost driver. But let´s say you will have to employ 2000 workers for two more years because of delays, costing you 100,000 euros each in annual salary, etc. That would still be "only" 400,000,000 euros. I am still as curious as you...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 21, 2012 4:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 20, 2010 12:52 pm
Posts: 188
I've been posting questions about these cost comparisons (past versus present, China versus France, etc.) for a couple of years, here and there. I'm glad some of you guys seem more interested. You're more likely than I am to understand the reason.

Again, how can this not be embarrassing?

Olkiluoto 3 - First concrete Aug 2005, begin operation in 2016?

Flamanville 3 - First concrete in Dec 2007 begin operation in 2016

Taishan 1 - First concrete Oct 2009, begin operation in 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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