Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Feb 23, 2018 1:24 pm

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 21, 2012 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1330
Location: NoOPWA
Cyril R wrote:
Can someone explain to me how you can spend 6200 million dollars on cost overruns?
By getting some government hack to agree to pay for it, or to agree that it is an authorized expense in a profit limited endeavor (as many utilities are).

Many utilities have what amounts to a "Cost+" contract with the government. They are allowed to charge whatever they want to recoup authorized costs, plus a set percentage profit. To get a greater profit they need greater authorized costs. This kind of finagle is typical as a means to greatly increase authorized costs, hence profit.

Profit limited utilities combine the worst of robber baron capitalism and socialism in one bundle. JMHO.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 22, 2012 8:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2238
Indians had also agreed to buy some EPR reactors to sweeten the deal for fuel. It may suit all the parties if they just built their Calandria based design, filled the medium sized reactors with light water to further cut the costs, and bought enriched uranium for half meter fuel bundles required.
The spent bundles could be further used in some heavy water filled reactors to extract some more energy.
Similarly, the fourth reactor at Kudankulam, if it ever gets built, could be filled with heavy water to reuse the used fuel bundles of other three, to reuse the fuel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2013 2:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 14, 2006 1:01 pm
Posts: 380
Why so expensive in the EU & USA? I thought it was interest rates, but the EXIM interest rates for nuclear and hydropower are 1.67% http://www.exim.gov/tools/commercialinterestreferencerates/

Maybe the big guys are taking us all for a ride; what do you think?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2013 7:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1330
Location: NoOPWA
Look up two posts above yours.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 05, 2013 2:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2238
The question still remains-Will the British buy Russian or Asian (other than Japanese) reactors? They may have tied themselves up in regulatory knots.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 16, 2013 4:49 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 489
'The UK energy minister has asked nuclear regulators to begin discussions over Generic Design Assessment (GDA) for Hitachi-GE's Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR). The design has been proposed for new units at the Wylfa and Oldbury sites.'

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-AB ... 01134.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 17, 2013 12:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2238
If the British want lower priced power, they have to get their reactors built by the Russians or the Chinese. Price escalation by the Europeans, N Americans/Japanese is too much. I wish they had also assessed VVER or the Chinese designs.
Indians have not built overseas so far but have had lowest cost/escalation within India. Indian PHWR costs are the lowest/kW @ $1700. Fast reactors are also around $2000/kW as per revised estimates. I wish that the Indians and the UK could share RG plutonium stocks and fast reactor skills.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 17, 2013 8:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
DaveMart wrote:
'The UK energy minister has asked nuclear regulators to begin discussions over Generic Design Assessment (GDA) for Hitachi-GE's Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR). The design has been proposed for new units at the Wylfa and Oldbury sites.'

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-AB ... 01134.html


I hope they aren't trying to re-invent the wheel. ABWR has already been licensed by the most critical regulatory agency in the world, the NRC. Including an amendment for aircraft crash resistance.

But perhaps the inclusion of EUR requirements is considered a necessity. But if national and utility requirements are important, then I still don't understand why they went for Hitachi. Toshiba has an EUR-ified ABWR already developed to detailed engineering stage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 18, 2013 2:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2238
Capital costs are very important in these billion dollar/pound/euro investments. I am sure they could beat the 11.1 billion dollar EPR. Can they match the Russians or the Chinese?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 18, 2013 2:55 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 489
Hitachi chose themselves as they are the ones offering to invest the money to build them.
Life would have been simpler if Toshiba had put in a bid to build its already certified reactor.

As for enough paperwork already having been done, there is never enough for a bureaucracy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 02, 2013 4:01 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 489
Hitachi have put in a bid for a new reactor in Finland:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Fi ... 02132.html

They are going for the ESBWR design for this, so I don't really understand why they are apparently going for the ABWR in the UK.

It is also notable that for all the noise made about cost overuns on the already being built Finnish reactors, they still see it as a viable option, however much 'greens' have sought to capitalise on the delays.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 02, 2013 7:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
Thanks Dave. This is really interesting, with so many bids in the tender. Toshiba's ABWR design - which is actually closer to ESBWR in many of the passive safety features - is also bidding in. PWRs are also included. It'd be interesting to see which one is deemed most competitive.

Hitachi may be going at it alone in their ESBWR bid, as GE is likely in the process of exiting - or just quietly hybernating - the nuclear new build business. The ESBWR does appear the simplest and most compact of all these designs, so should have an edge on costs. But you never know, what with the Koreans joining in. Industrious little fellows, them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 03, 2013 2:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2238
There is an interesting comparison between Japan and Germany. The Japanese are still licking the wounds given by the earthquake and tsunami. The Japanese companies are venturing abroad to keep their nuclear skills sharp.
The Germans were scared out of their wits by natural disaster on the far side of globe. They shut down half their reactors and scheduled the closure of the remaining. The German companies got out of their plans to build in the UK. Their places have been taken by the Japanese.
The UK should open the doors to the Russian and the Chinese if they want power without paying through their nose. The Russians could help them set up fast reactors at reasonable rates to make good use of their plutonium assets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 03, 2013 3:36 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 489
Russian, Chinese etc builds are going to be impractical for this round of US reactors, as they have not even begun certification.
In any case, I don't think the problem lies with the companies as such.
When they are building in a conducive place, such as China or Korea, the same companies which have massive cost and time overuns in the West do fine.
The problem is not confined to nuclear build either.
For instance in the UK:
'The report identified a number of drivers for the higher cost of construction in the UK compared to other EU countries and supports the view that higher costs for UK infrastructure are mainly generated in the early project formulation and pre-construction phases.'

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/iuk_cost_review_index.htm

And the rest of Europe itself has way higher costs than elsewhere.
I don't know enough and have not involvement in the sector needed to comment precisely on the factors involved, but it is sure not simply cheap Chinese labour.
Infrastructure builds both in the US and Europe are way above competitive levels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 03, 2013 7:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1330
Location: NoOPWA
jagdish wrote:
The UK should open the doors to the Russian and the Chinese if they want power without paying through their nose.
Given the Chinese habit of screwing over their foreign partners, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want them anywhere near a nuclear facility in my country.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


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 2 guests


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